Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the Ilonse of the 5th August, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

PIT-HEAD BATHS.

Mr. HIRST: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increased cost of materials, owners are still bound to provide pit-head baths, even if the cost of maintenance exceeds 3d. per week for each workman?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Under Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which deals with the matter, the owner is not required to provide baths if the estimated total cost of maintenance exceeds 3d. per week for each workman affected.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Having regard to the fact that Mr. Justice Sankey made recommendations in favour of solving this problem, does the Government propose to do anything to change that position?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not know that I am able to make any definite statement on that point.

BUNKER COAL

Mr. HOUSTON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the great congestion in South Wales ports and consequent. serious delay to steamers, which are kept waiting for lengthy periods not only for cargoes of
coal but also for bunker coal; whether he is aware that, owing to the difficulty of obtaining bunker coal in Liverpool and the high cost of the same, steamship owners were requested by the Coal Controller to bunker their steamers at South Wales ports; whether he is aware that a 10,000ton liner steamer has been delayed ten days waiting for bunker coal at Cardiff, entailing congestion and waste of quay space occupied by her outward cargo at Glasgow and at Liverpool; and can he state whether the congestion and delay are due to the Coal Controller or the Ministry of Transport in failing to provide wagons?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): I am aware that there is considerable detention of vessels in South Wales' ports at the present time. The acute position is due to the fact that there is an unusually large amount of tonnage in the ports, but the transport situation in South Wales and tipping facilities at the ports are not satisfactory, the chief difficulty being, I am informed, the restricted hours of working at the tips which results in the loss of considerable output of coal and involves delay to shipping. This matter is receiving the attention of the Ministries of Shipping and of Transport, and also of my Department. I am not aware of any case of a 10,000-ton liner delayed for ten days waiting for bunker coal at Cardiff. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind the "Hyacinthus,"this vessel arrived on the 12th instant and required a part cargo of coal as well as bunkers; the attention of the local representative of the Controller of Coal Mines was not called to the position by the shipping agents until the 16th instant; and arrangements have been made for the vessel to be bunkered to-day.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of this delay is due to the action of the Coal Controller in holding up coal, and that this steamer has now been waiting thirteen days for bunkers, which will add some £8,000 to the cost of the voyage, and that also will add to the cost of food in this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: I know about the "Hyacinthus," but in that particular case it was not due to the local representative of the Coal Controller failing to do something. Really, he was not told by the ship agents what they wanted.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further into the matter, and then he will find it was due to the Coal Controller and not to the local coal controller?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will make further inquiry.

COAL PRICES.

Mr. SITCH: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that fuel overseers or other local administrators are denied the power, without the consent of the Coal Controller, to check the price or to examine the books of registered merchants for transactions under the Coal Prices (Limitations) Act or Wholesale Coal Prices Order; and whether, in the interests of the consumer, he will consider the desirability of inquiries being made at the time of the sale by the officers of local authorities on the spot, rather than the inquiry being left to six representatives of the Coal Controller, who cannot, after the transaction has taken place, obtain reliable evidence of any overcharge?

Sir A. GEDDES: Fuel overseers and local representatives of the Coal Controller do, in fact, investigate transactions coming under the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, and the Wholesale Coal Prices Order and report any irregularities to the Coal Mines Department. The measures provided have been in force for some time, and the procedure, adopted for securing compliance is working satisfactorily.

HOUSEHOLD FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER, 1919.

Mr. SITCH: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that local administrators of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order with many years' experience resent and consider it a reflection on their honour in having to obtain the sanction of the Coal Controller or his representative. more or less influenced by trade considerations and of no administrative experience, before instituting any proceedings. Whilst in other spheres local officers have much more important matters to decide; and whether he will reconsider the necessity of revoking Clause 71 of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, which is without precedent, and bestow upon local authorities and such of their officers as they may appoint power to decide whether proceedings shall be taken similar to that obtaining under the Food Orders?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am not aware of the existence of any dissatisfaction of the nature referred to. As regards the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 20th November.

Mr. J. JONES: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in administering coal prices under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, experience has shown that the public are at present inadequately protected against overcharges made by registered coal merchants, in view of the fact that the Coal Controller's district representatives, from whom local fuel overseers have to obtain a written consent before proceedings can be instituted for excess prices, are directly or indirectly interested or have been previously employed in the coal trade; and if he will say what steps will be taken to deal with this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: No, Sir. The experience of the Coal Mines Department does not bear out the suggestion contained in the question.

Mr. J. JONES: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is no difficulty in obtaining consent to prosecute a small coal dealer selling in quantities less than two cwts, for charging an excess price for coal, whilst consent Can seldom, if ever, be obtained under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, to prosecute a registered coal merchant for charging an excess price, even if evidence is or can be procured; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am advised by the Coal Controller that he has no information which would justify the suggestions made in the question, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will let me have any evidence in his possession.

Mr. J. JONES: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many registered coal merchants have been prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders, 1918 and 1919, respectively; how many licensed coal dealers have been prosecuted under the 1918 and 1919 Orders, respectively; whether he is aware that there is much more overcharging for coal by colliery proprietors and registered merchants than by licensed coal dealers selling in a less quantity than
2cwts.; that the practice is prevalent for registered coal merchants to sell inferior coal at a higher-quality price to consumers; and that it is prevalent to sell common coal at a higher-quality price to dealers for resale to the consumers who, in consequence, have to pay an excess price contrary to the laws made and provided; whether there are only six officials to prevent these excess charges being made throughout the country; whether he will consider the desirability of extending these duties, in addition to these six officials, to local authorities and such of their officials as they may appoint; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending Part VII., the Sale of Coal, of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1919, and, before doing so, seek the advice of local administrative officers who have experience of the many defects and omissions of the Order?

Sir A. GEDDES: As regards the first two parts of the question, I regret that the Coal Mines Department are unable at short notice to add to the information which I furnished in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Wentworth Division of Yorks on 8th December. As regards the third part of the question, I have no reason to believe that the allegations are justified by the facts. With regard to the final part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bolton on the 4th December.

COAL MINES (FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS).

Mr. HOGGE: 85.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could now make a statement as to the Government's policy in relation to the coal mines; and whether any provision was to be made for the development of the coalfields which was at present held up?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply to this question on behalf of the Prime Minister. The statement is very long, and with the permission of the House I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In substance it amounts to this, that the Government is discussing the financial position of the mining industry with the coal-owners, and will introduce legislation next Session to obtain powers to make necessary financial adjustments.
The following is the statement referred to:

1. It is not proposed to proceed with the Second Reading of the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill. In the Debate on that measure, hon. Members opposite having intimated authoritatively that the Miners' Federation did not regard the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill as the fulfilment of a Government pledge, and that they preferred the continuance of the existing Coal Mines Control Agreement, accordingly, the Leader of the House undertook that the Government would investigate what it would mean to the coal-owners and the general taxpayer if the agreement were adhered to. From both points of view, adhesion to the agreement would work such injustice as to be impossible.
2. First, from the. public point of view a considerable loss to the Treasury would be involved, because the coalmining industry during this financial year has been controlled on the basis of some limitations of profits becoming enforceable For example, the incidence of the cost involved in the increase of wages and reduction in hours under the Interim Sankey Report and the subsequent increase of 6s. per ton on all inland coal in July last were determined on this basis. So was the recent reduction of 10s. in the price of domestic coal, as was fully explained to the House. This reduction was made, not out of a surplus then in hand, but out of a surplus which would accrue before the end of the financial year because of the unexpectedly high export prices now ruling as a direct result of the dislocation produced by the War. Either to cancel the "Sankey" wage or to leave it as a charge on the Exchequer is unthinkable. To abandon the benefit to the consumer represented by the 10s. reduction in the price of domestic coal or to leave it as a charge on the Exchequer while such prodigious export profits are being made as a result of conditions which are inflicting great hardships on the community is, in the view of the Government, also unthinkable.
3. But, secondly, as a matter of fairness to the industry as a whole, adhesion to the agreement for this year is equally impossible. Briefly, the position is this: With a total output of coal far below the prewar output, the strictest control over the destination of supplies has been and still is essential. Even if the output were on the pre-war level some control of destina-
969
tion would continue to be necessary while the present level of export prices obtains, otherwise the country would not be able to retain home supplies except at world prices At the moment both inland quantity and inland prices are safeguarded with great benefit to the nation. Some collieries—favoured by geographical position —are allowed to export at, a price which is unregulated; the greater number of collieries are, however, compelled to supply inland requirements only at a regulated price, which is, on the average, below the cost of production. In the years 1917 and 1918 there was no very substantial difference between export prices and home prices, say 4s. on the average, there is now an enormous difference, say 30s. on the average, as compared with industrial price. If exporting collieries were to have the advantage of these prices—even subject to the limitations of the Coal Mines Control Agreement—they would be reaping an advantage from a valuable monopoly conferred upon them by the State, while collieries compelled to supply home consumers, whether industrial or domestic, would in spite of the provisions of the Agreement, stiffer financially not through any fault of their own, but because of emergency circumstances of which they are the victims.
4. It is impossible for the Government (in the exercise of its functions of safeguarding home supplies and home prices) to grant to selected exporting collieries a valuable monopoly without arranging for some special contribution from them, and to take from inland collieries the opportunity of making themselves even self supporting without in same way compensating them. It is contemplated that this special contribution and the compensation fairly payable should, as nearly as may be, balance. The readjustment of the finances of the industry is, therefore, imperative, and although the Government is no longer bound to adjust them in the manner provided in the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill—a procedure which they would certainly not have adopted apart from the Sankey Report and pledge of 20th March—the readjustment in the light of present circumstances cannot be very different in its 'broad financial result.
The position is now being discussed and explored with the coal owners with a view to arriving at a fair and equitable distribution of the total profits of the industry but if agreement cannot be obtained in this way, the Government will formulate
proposals of their own. In either event, a Bill to give effect to the readjustment will be submitted to the House when it reassembles.
The effect of not proceeding with the Coal Industry (Emergency) Bill will, of course, be that there will be a cash deficit on this financial year, but as the readjustment will, in the end, be retrospective to the same date as the Bill prescribed, namely, the 1st April last, it will be a temporary deficit and not a permanent one.
Essential parts of any readjustment will be:

(a) that increased capital employed in the business in development or otherwise is remunerated;
(b) that the Sankey Wage shall be treated as a working expense of the colliery; and,
(c) that collieries whose coal is retained in the United Kingdom—whether for industrial or household and domestic purposes—are equitably and justly dealt with, as compared with collieries enjoying the export monopoly, so that they do not suffer by reason of the reduction in price of household and domestic coal.


5 So far as control of the industry is concerned, no new legislation requires to be introduced. Control of the industry has been exercised under certain of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and these Regulations it is intended to continue by means of the Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill until 31st August next. The Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, and the Orders made under that Act and under the Defence of the Realm Regulations will remain quite apart from financial legislation
6. The Government during the autumn has continued to consider the future of the mining industry and will, during the Recess, give further close consideration to this matter.

COKE EXPORTS.

Sir R. COOPER: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if coke is being exported from South Wales whilst blast furnaces in the Midlands are on the point of closing down owing to the shortage of supply of coke?

Sir A. GEDDES: There is coke available for the blast furnaces in question, and the only difficulty is that of obtaining the necessary wagons. The Coal Controller has been in communication with certain firms in the Midlands on this point.

COAL TRADE (CARTAGE).

Mr. HAYDAY: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is a common practice in all sections of trade in commercial centres for cartage to be paid for at a specified rate per ton, and such practice is prevalent in the coal trade when carts are hired; that although local conditions vary it is found possible for coal merchants to pay a cartage contractor for the cartage of coal at a flat rate and to fix locally the price of coal at a flat rate according to grade 1, 2, 3, or 4, as the case may be; that the expenses said to be entailed for cartage in the sale of coal cover up many excess charges, and if cartage was charged at a flat rate per ton consumers could be better protected than under the present system; and whether he is prepared to recommend that local fuel overseers, when fixing the retail price of coal under the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, should fix the cost of cartage and the delivery of coal to the consumers' premises at a flat rate per ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: In fixing retail prices for coal, the local fuel overseers take into consideration the charges for carting ruling in their districts, and, although no separate charge may be made to the consumer for carting, the result desired by the hon. Member is attained.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-GERMAN MERCHANT SHIPS (FIRES).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there have been several cases of destructive fires in ex-German merchant ships, such as the "Boonah," now in the Royal Albert Dock; and whether any special investigation as to the cause of these fires has been or is to be made?

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the number of fires on ex-German ships; and whether inquiries show that the causes are all accidental?

Sir A. GEDDES: Attention has for some time past been directed to the number of fires which have occurred on merchant ships, including those referred to in the question, and special arrangements have been made for investigating them. It is not yet possible to state the result.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Is there any suspicion of foul play in connection with these fires?

Sir A. GEDDES: That suggestion has been put forward and I have had preliminary investigation made. It seems much more probable—I will not go further than that—that the fires in some cases have arisen through old bunkers not being cleared out.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases of alleged profiteering in wholesale articles are being investigated by the Board of Trade; how many decisions in such cases have been reached since the Profiteering Act became law; how many cases of trusts and combines are being investigated; and how many decisions have ben reached?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Central Committee, to which the powers of the Board of Trade under the Profiteering Act in relation to wholesale transactions have been delegated, have investigated and decided thirty-eight specific complaints. Ten investigations in respect of trusts or combines have been instituted in five of which a Report or Interim Report has been rendered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the cases mentioned was profiteering proved, and have any proceedings been taken or has anything been done?

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, yes. In all cases action is being taken, but in all cases we are not rushing it because we do not want to create a great disturbance of trade. We are taking it slowly and where people do not yield we are applying pressure.

Mr. LINDSAY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many public authorities in Ireland should have set up committees under the Profiteering Act; and how many have done so?

Sir A. GEDDES: One hundred and twelve local authorities in Ireland, out of 309 to whom invitations were sent, have already established or are about to establish local committees under the Profiteering Act. At present only twenty-three local authorities have definitely refused to establish local committees.

Mr. MADDOCKS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that prosecutions under the Profiteering Act are proceeded with before justices whilst appeals are pending in respect of the same offences from decisions of the local profiteering tribunals; and whether he will take steps to prevent this procedure being continued?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Regulations for local committees provide that if an appeal is duly made from the decision of the local committee action on any Order shall be suspended until the result of the appeal is known. In one case which was brought to notice, a local committee were proceeding with a prosecution while an appeal was pending, and their attention was immediately called to this Regulation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYES.

Mr. SUGDEN: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps he is taking to facilitate the delivery of certain dye colours which to the present time have not been manufactured by British firms, and yet are vitally essential in their use by textile manufacturers; if he is aware that large orders are being daily refused because of this handicap; and, considering the export trade in this section of manufactures and its bearing on national finance, if he will expedite measures to remedy the same?

Sir A. GEDDES: Under the terms of the Treaty of Peace certain quantities of dyestuffs are to be furnished by Germany as part of reparation, and, in view of urgent requirements in this country, arrangements have been made for supplies of the reparation dyes to be obtained from Germany in advance of the formal ratification of the Treaty. Some have already arrived and will be distributed shortly, and steps are being taken to secure as quickly as possible the further quantities to which the United Kingdom is entitled.

Mr. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for research work in British laboratories to facilitate the British manufacture of these dyes?

Sir A. GEDDES: That is the policy of the Government. A very large sum of money has been contributed for that purpose.

Major M. WOOD: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade Whether the dyes consigned to this country from Germany have yet arrived; if so, what quantity has now been distributed to British consumers; and by what agency this has been done?

Sir A. GEDDES: A quantity of about. 350 tons have actually arrived in this country, and further quantities are on their way. Consumers of dyestuffs have been invited to state their requirements, and these are now being classified. The detailed arrangements as to distribution will be announced shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALSACE-L0RRAINE (PAYMENT OF PRE-WAR DEBTS).

Mr. SUGDEN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that persons resident in Alsace-Lorraine are tendering payment against pre-war debts in German marks at the present rate of exchange; that English merchants and manufacturers are consequently sustaining losses due to the depreciated value of the mark; whether this mode of payment, is sanctioned by His Majesty's Government; if so, on what grounds do they decide such process; and how do they propose to compensate suitably the English merchants and manufacturers?

Sir A. GEDDES: The provisions of the Treaty of Peace with Germany under which pre-war debts due to British subjects have to be discharged in sterling at the pre-war rate of exchange do not apply in the case of persons resident in Alsace-Lorraine. In these circumstances, there is no power to compel the payment of the debts referred to by ray hon. Friend at the pre-war rate of exchange, and the settlement of such debts is a matter for private arrangement.

Mr. SUGDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the provision of compensation in view of the fact that many men who were traders before the war, and who accepted service, are now being almost ruined as a result of their patriotism? I suggest that the Board of Trade should do something to compensate them.

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid that no amount of compensation by me would modify the terms of the Treaty of Peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING STONE PRICES.

Major W. MURRAY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the high prices charged at the quarry mouth for stone required for building; whether these prices are in any degree due to the action of combines, rings, or trusts; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have them reduced?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no information of any trust or combine of the nature referred to in the question. I should be grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend would supply me with particulars of any case he may have in mind.

Major MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases these prices have risen by 400 or 500 per cent. when compared with the pre-war prices, and does he think that can be wholly accounted for by increased costs of production?

IMPORT PROHIBITION PROCLAMATIONS under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876


Number of proclamation.
Date of Proclamation.
Articles covered.
Modification to previous Proclamations.


—
5 May,1915.
…
Belgian bank notes.



—
28 July,1915
…
Unset diamonds.



—
30 Nov.1915
…
Machine tools.



—
15Feb.1915
…
All materials for the manufacture of paper, including wood pulp, esparto grass, and linen and cotton rags. Paper and card board (including strawboard, paste board, millboard and wood pulp board), and manufactures of paper and card board. All periodical publications exceeding sixteen pages in length, imported otherwise than in single copies

Sir A. GEDDES: I know that the increase is very great in some cases, but whether or not it is due to the action of combines I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS RESTRICTION.

Mr. JUSTICE SANKEY'S JUDGMENT.

Mr. G. THORNE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the present Law Officers, or their predecessors, have at any time given a written opinion that any of the proclamations affecting articles other than arms and ammunition issued under Section 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, were legal; if so, who were the Law Officers; and will he lay the opinion before the House?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade who were the Law Officers of the Crown responsible for the Regulation which was declared illegal by the recent Sankey decision?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Proclamation affecting pyrogallic acid was not itself referred to any Law Officer, but was issued in 1919 as the thirty-second of the series founded on the precedent established in the first half of 1915 and acted on by all the Governments which have been in office since the outbreak of war. It is not and never has been the custom to refer to the Law Officers Regulations which involve no departure from accepted precedent. In view of the interest attaching to this matter, I propose to have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full list of the Proclamations, showing the dates of their issue.
The following is the list referred to:

Number of Proclamation.
Date of Proclamation.
Articles covered.
Moditicutions to Previons Proclamations.






through the post. Tobacco, unmanufactured, and manufactured (including cigars and cigarettes). Furniture woods, hard woods and veiieei'e, stones and slates.



—
10 Mar., 1916
…
Canned, bottled, dried and preserved fruits, except currants.



NO. 3
…
21 "
…
Motor cars, chassis, motor cycles and parts, etc.







Musical instruments. Spirits except brandy and rum.



" 4
…
30 "
…
Baskets and basket ware (except baskets and basket ware of bamboo). Cement, china ware, earthenware and pottery, not including cloisonne wares. Cotton yarn, cotton piece goods, and cotton manufactures of all kinds, except hosiery and lace. Cutlery, fatty acids. Furniture, manufactured joinery and other wood manufactures, except lacquered wares. Hardware and hollow-ware. Oilcloth. Soap. Toys, games, and playing cards. Wood and timber of the following kinds, namely, beech, birch, elm, and oak. Woollen and worsted manufactures of all kinds, except yarns.



" 5
…
10 May "
…
Bladders, casings and sausage skins. Brooms and brushes. Bulbs, flower roots, plants, trees and shrubs. Canned, bottled, dried and preserved vegetables and pickles. Horns and hoofs. Ice, ivory, vegetable. Moss, litter, salt, starch, dextrine, farina and potato flour.



" 6
…
1 June "
…
Aluminium manufactures, baths of metal, beer, carpet sweepers, cash registers, hops, lawn mowers, leather manufactures, matches, sewing machines, stoves,; and ranges, toilet articles containing glycerine, wringers and mangles.
Starch, etc. revoked.


" 7
…
27"
…
Motor Cars, chassis and parts previously exempted, vacuum cleaners, yeast.



" 8
…
27 July ".
…
Air guns and rifles, sporting guns, carbines and rifles, oranges.



" 9
…
18 Aug. ".
…
Chestnut extract, lacquered wares, glass, window and sheet, glass plate, table ware of glass.



., 1O
…
3 Oct. "
…
Aluminium powder, birds (live), bone, horn, ivory and celluloid manufactures, cotton hosiery.
Oranges revoked


11
…
16 Nov. "
…
Jewellery and all manufactures of gold and silver other than watches and watch cases.



" 12
…
5 Dec.
.…
Gold, manufactured or unmanufactured, including gold coin. All manufactures of silver other than silver watches and watch cases. Jewellery of any description.
Proclamation No. 11 revoked.

Number of Proclamation.
Date of Proclamation.
Articles covered.
Modifications to previous Proclamations.


—
11 Dec., 1916
…
Cocaine and opium (Home Office).



No. 13
…
22 "
…
Automatic machines, military rifles and carbines, miniature and cadet rifles and carbines, revolvers and pistols.
Cotton hosiery revoked.


" 14
…
23 Feb., 1917
…
Aerated, mineral and table waters, agricultural machinery, antimony ware, apparel, not waterproofed (except boots and shoes), works of art baskets and basketware of bamboo, books, printed, and other printed matter including printed posters and daily, weekly and other periodical publications imported otherwise than in single copies through the post. Boots and shoes of leather, and materials used for the manufactures thereof, not already prohibited. Brandy, clocks and parts thereof, cloisonne wares, cocoa, preparations of cocoa raw, coffee, cotton hosiery, cotton lace and article? thereof. Curios, diatomite and infusorial earth, embroidery and needlework, fancy goods, known as Paris goods, feathers, ornamental and down, fire ex tinguishers, flowers, artificial, flowers, fresh, fruit, raw, of all descriptions (except lemons and bitter oranges), and almonds and nuts used as fruit. Glass manufactures not already prohibited, gloves, hats and bonnets, hides wet aaci dry, incandescent gas mantles, jute, raw. leather, dressed and undressed, linen, yarns and manufactures of, lobsters, canned, mats and matting, mops, painters' colours and pigments, per fumery, photographic apparatus, pic tures, prints, engravings, photographs and maps, plated and gilt wares, quails, live, quebracho, hemlock, oak, and mangrove extracts, rum, salmon, canned, silk, manufactures of, not including silk yarns, skins and furs, manufactures of Soya beans, stereoscopes, straw envelopes for bottles, straw plaiting, sugar, articles and preparations containing used for food (except condensed milk), tea, tomatoes, typewriters, wine, wood and timber of all kinds, hewn, sawn or split, planed or dressed.



Consolidation and Amendment
30 Mar. "
…
—
All preceding prohibitions revoked.


". 16
…
10 May "
…
Animals wild, gum copal, gum kauri, manufactures of rubber.

Number of Proclamation.
Date of Proclamation.
Articles covered.
Moditicutions to Previons Proclamations.


No. 17
…
28 June, 1917
Carbons for are lamps, carbons for search lights, cartridges, electric dry cells and carbons therefor.



" 18
…
22 Aug. "
…
All machinery driven by power and suit able for use in cutting, working or operating on wood, electrical motors up to one-half horse-power.



" 19
…
29 "
…
Bacon, butter, hams, lard.



" 20
…
16 Nov. "
…
Abrasive wheels, binder or reaper twine, brass rod and brass wire, cycles other than motor cycles, electric motors, electrical motors over one-half horse power, electric hand lamps and torches, magnetos, measuring tapes and rules of all descriptions, including vermers, micrometers, pens, penholders, pencils, and all other stationery of which the;importation is not already prohibited, vegetables in brine.



" 21.
…
21 Dec "
…
Bonds, debentures, stock, etc. (Treasury).



" 22
…
16 Jan., 1918
…
Antimony ore, antimony crude and regulus, antimony sulphide, carpets and rugs.



" 23
…
22 Mar. "
…
Molasses, etc., plaiting, rattans and malacca canes, weighing machines, wood flour.



" 24
…
13 April
…
Booots, shoes and slippers, brislings, herrings, sprats and mousses, tinned in oil, etc.



" 25
…
4 June "
…
Cheese, fuses, motor spirit, kerosene, gas oil, sugar cane, treadle lathes of 3 inch centres and over, fuel oil.



" 26.
…
2 Aug. "
…
Canes of all descriptions, crabs, prawns, shrimps and oysters canned, red prussiate of potash.



" 27
…
27 Sept. "
…
Cassia lignea, fibre flax seed for sowing pimento, spectacles, time recording instruments and parts, watches and parts.



" 28
…
8 Nov. "
…
Oleo stearine and tallow, olive oil, onions.



" 29
…
24Feb.1919
…
Coal tar derivatives, colours.



" 30
…
28 Mar. "
…
Rouble notes (Treasury).



" 31
…
8 May
…
Potash salts, saccharin.



" 32
…
25 June "
…
Chemicals, electrical goods and apparatus, scientific etc., instruments, tungsten powder, and ferro tungsten.

Captain BENN: Was the case of the legality of these Proclamations over submitted to any Law Officers, and are any of their opinions in existence in writing, and, if so, whose?

Sir A. GEDDES: I know nothing of the circumstances in which the first Proclamation was issued. It was issued on the authority of the Cabinet, of whose internal
doings I know nothing. From that time forward no opinion of the Law Officers has been taken without reference to existing precedents, and, therefore, no opinion of the Law Officers is independent of the precedents which exist.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that there are no written opinions on this point by either Lord Buckmaster or Sir John
Simon, and is it not a fact that such written opinion as there is is of Law Officers who are not either of these two gentlemen named, and, if that is the case, was not the right hon. Gentleman wholly incorrect when he gave the answer he did last Thursday?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot agree that I was wholly or even partially incorrect. The first Proclamation was issued at the time when these two gentlemen were the Law Officers of the Crown. They may not have been consulted. I do not know.

Captain BENN: You said so.

Sir A. GEDDES: They were the responsible Law Officers. A member of the Cabinet, as Sir John Simon was, cannot divest himself of his responsibility.

Captain BENN: No; he was not!

Sir A. GEDDES: There has been no law opinion of any Law Officer taken independent of the existing precedents. It may be of some interest that there is a pre-war precedent in the case of Holman v. Hill, in which there is a decision based upon a judgment of three Irish judges which is very relevant.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my specific question. Is there a written opinion by Law Officers on this point, and, if so, who are the Law Officers who gave that opinion?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have, I think, answered the question. There is no opinion expressed by any Law Officer subsequently to the institution at the beginning of this procedure, which does not take into account the precedents established.

Sir D. MACLEAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There are 232 questions on the Paper.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 87.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's intention to pass legislation to deal with Mr. Justice Sankey's decision in the case of import prohibitions, it was intended further to use public money on appeals to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords?

Mr. SONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The decision referred to is at present under appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal will pro-
ceed. The present decision seems to be to some extent at variance with a decision of a Court of three judges in Ireland upon the construction of the same Section of the Statute.

Captain BENN: When the representative of the Board of Trade on 11th August and Lord Somerleyton on 26th August in another place stated that the Cabinet had consulted the Law Officers and were advised that they were right, who were the Law Officers referred to?

Mr. SONAR LAW: I must have notice of that.

Captain BENN: I have already given notice.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer, I believe, has already been given. Does the hon. and gallant Member refer to the time it was undertaken, or to a later stage?

Captain BENN: When the representative of the Board of Trade said, "We have consulted the Law Officers, and are advised that we are within the limits of the law," who were the Law Officers to whom reference was made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULATION BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 86.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had now decided to abandon the Imports and Exports Regulations Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether Mr. W. B. Woodhouse, engineer and manager of the Yorkshire Electric Power Company, is to be one of the Commissioners under the new Electricity Bill; and whether, in view of the Act probably coming into operation in a few days' time, he will give the names of all the Commissioners who have been appointed?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): No Commissioners can be appointed until the Electricity (Supply) Bill becomes an Act. I am not in a position to make any statement except that, as I have already announced in
reply to the hon. Member on 24th November, Sir John Snell is Chief Commissioner Designate.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to assume that there is no truth in the statement that has been made with reference to the gentleman referred to in the question?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have seen no such statement.

TRAIN FACILITIES.

Mr. DENISON-PENDER: 26 and 27.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that, owing to an apparent shortage of ticket collectors, congestion and delay occurs at Balham Station on the arrival of the evening trains from Victoria; and whether he will ask the railway company to see that two collectors are posted at each exit between the hours of 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.; and (2) whether he is aware of the overcrowded travelling conditions between Balham and Victoria on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway; whether even during the dinner hour, when the trains are shortened, as many as five and six passengers are compelled to stand in each third-class compartment; and whether he will consider the possibility of starting a number of trains from Balham to relieve the morning congestion, and to refrain from detaching coaches from the latter trains where the overcrowding is due to preventable causes?

Sir E. GEDDES: There has been considerable increase of traffic at Balham Station, and the possibility of increasing the number of trains is engaging the attention of the railway company, but they are unable at present to put on more trains, as the whole of their electric stock is in use. The service will be improved as soon as motors can be obtained Two additional ticket collectors have been trained for the work at Balham Station, and they took up their duties there on the 17th and 16th December, respectively.

Mr. CAIRNS: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a train leaves Morpeth at 7.35 a.m., and can arrangements be made for it to start at 8.30 a.m., as that time will suit better miners, teachers, and others going to the colliery districts, the next train at 9.28 a.m. being one and a-half hours late?

Sir E. GEDDES: This train is timed to reach Newcastle at the most convenient time for the majority of passengers using it. The detailed arrangements of timetables is a matter for the railway company concerned, who endeavour to meet the convenience of the public to the greatest possible extent. It is obviously impossible, and, I think the House will agree, undesirable to concentrate such detailed matters in the Ministry.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman making inquiries on the spot by his agents?

Mr. CAIRNS: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport it he is aware that a train leaves Alamouth at 8.42 a.m. and does not stop at Widdrington and Pegswood, causing inconvenience to many miners; and, seeing that 1,000 employés are working at Pegswood, many of whom live away from the colliery, will he have inquiries made into the matter?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am informed that an additional train which should meet this difficulty will run from 1st January, but, as stated in my answer to the previous question, the detailed arrangement of time tables is a matter for the railway corn-panics, and I hope hon. Members will support me in my desire not to interfere in such matters from Whitehall.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men cannot get to the pit, and have to walk ten miles?

STEAMER SERVICE, STORNOWAY.

Dr. MURRAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, even when there was a daily service between Stornoway and the mainland, numerous complaints as to the insufficiency and inefficiency of the service were made by public bodies and by representatives of the trading and travelling public; that now, since the services have been reduced by one-half, there is a real danger of the necessaries of life being short during the winter, as well as the business and trade of the port and island being seriously hampered; whether he is aware that, owing to the invariably crowded state of the mail boat, travelling by this service, which is a night service, is always uncomfortable and often dangerous; whether he is aware that over 200 women returning from the English fishing were held up recently at Kyle for two days with little food or shelter; and
whether he will induce the Highland Railway Company to exercise their powers to maintain an efficient daily service between Kyle and Stornoway, or in any other way to take steps to restore a daily and efficient service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to answer this question. While I regret that it is not possible to restore the prewar mail-boat service to Stornoway, I am advised that the present service, coupled with other steamer facilities, is adequate both for the supply of food and for necessary trade purposes. The regrettable incident referred to in the latter part of the question was, I believe, the result of the women missing the mail-boat connection by about two hours. It is, of course, impossible to guarantee that a small steamer is not at times rather crowded when the traffic is subject to great variations of this kind, but I do not gather that this is a normal state of affairs. So far as I am aware, the Highland Railway Company have no powers to maintain the present service from Kyle, but in any case they would not be likely to undertake it, still less to increase it, without a subsidy from the State.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Committee appointed by the Government when the War was going on reported that even when there was a daily service between Lewis and the mainland it was inadequate, and recommended an extra steamer?

RETURNED EMPTIES.

Mr. ATKEY: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the position in which traders of all classes are placed by the refusal of the railway companies to convey returned empties; and, in particular, whether he will cause inquiries to be made with regard to the treatment by the railway companies of Messrs. A. Burke, Dean, and Company, of 300, Radford Road, Nottingham, who have crates and boxes on hand which have been charged up to them but which they are unable to return?

Sir E. GEDDES: There is no general restriction on the conveyance of empties, though it is sometimes necessary to impose temporary embargoes, as in the case of other traffic, when pressare is abnormally
heavy. As regards the firm referred to, I understand no complaints have been made to the railway companies serving Nottingham regarding their empties, though there may have been some misunderstanding about one consignment.

COLLIERIES AND DOCKS (CONGESTION).

Mr. D. HERBERT: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the congestion at the collieries and docks could be greatly relieved by running freight trains on Sundays when the lines are comparatively free of other traffic; whether such trains could be run with scarcely any additional labour beyond that of the drivers and others in charge of such trains; and whether he will consider the advisability of appealing to railwaymen to volunteer for this work to assist the country in the present emergency?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is a customary railway practice to run freight trains on Sundays, and therefore the third part of the question does not arise. As regards the second part, it should be remembered that the running of trains means the employment of signalmen and terminal staff, as well as train staff.

DEMCRRAGE CHARGES (GOODS WAGONS).

Captain BAGLEY: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will give comparative figures of the pre-war and present capacity, actual load, journey time, daily earnings, and demurrage charge of the average goods wagon engaged in any typical traffic?

Sir E. GEDDES: The information asked for is not available, as the railway companies do not compile statistics in this form. If my hon. Friend will, however, consult with the Ministry, I will be glad to see whether any figures which do exist will help him.

RAILWAY SERVICES, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. ATKEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his refusal to instruct the Midland Railway Company to reopen the closed exit opposite Trent Street, Nottinghm, arises from the cost involved; and if he will state what the annual cost would be and give details as to how the total is arrived at?

Sir E. GEDDES: The cost which the reopening of the exit referred to would involve is, in view of the present necessity
for economy, a consideration of importance. I am not in a position to add to the details of such cost, which are given in the report by the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, of which the hon. Gentleman was furnished with a copy in August last.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the very greatest discomfort is experienced by passengers at Nottingham by this arrangement?

Dr. MURRAY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman take no notice of a question relating to the North-Western Highlands and answers questions on this everlasting gate every week?

Brigadier-General CROFT: When are the people of Nottingham to be given these facilities?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is believed the present facilities are adequate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the comparative cost of paying the demobilised soldiers' out-of-work donation and making this alteration?

Mr. SPEAKER: That requires notice.

Mr. ATKEY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the question of restoring the facilities to traders in the way of delivering to them their parcels arriving by passenger train; and whether he is aware that the limitation of the radius for delivery owing to the introduction of the eight-hours day has the effect of burdening the traders of Nottingham with an expense hitherto borne by the railway companies?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am at present. unable to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend and to the lion. Member for Rushriffe on the 17th November, in reply to similar questions.

Mr. ATKEY: Is it a fact that it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to pass part of the costs of railway administration on to traders?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, that is not a fact.

Mr. ATKEY: Is that not the result of what is now being done?

Sir E. GEDDES: No. It means that there is a reduction of this facility.

WAGON MANUFACTURE.

Mr. HAILWOOD: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has received an offer
from Mr. Dudley Docker, chairman of the Metropolitan Carriage and Finance Company, to build 500 railway wagons per week at less cost than His Majesty's Government can produce them under their national scheme; and if he is prepared to accept the offer?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Minister has received a letter from Mr. Dudley Docker. chairman of the Metropolitan Carriage and Finance Company, offering to build wagons at the rate of 500 per week, and six railway companies have been placed in communication with him.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a chartered accountant has been appointed to go into the question of the cost?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir; not yet.

Brigadier - General CROFT: Many months ago did the right hon. Gentleman receive an offer from another big firm offering to supply wagons at a very rapid rate for a profit of only 5 per cent!

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no recollection of such an offer; all the facilities for the construction of wagons at a reasonable cost, expeditiously, have been explored.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that wagons are being held up—wagons built by the Metropolitan Company—through the lack of the appointment of this chartered accountant, as promised last week?

Lord H. CAVENDISH -BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman get a move on?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am doing it as quickly as I can.

Mr. LAMBERT: Was not an answer given by his Department last week that an accountant would be appointed at once?

Sir E. GEDDES: The appointment is to be made in agreement with those who represent. the wagon building interest.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware Ilea a deputation from the workpeople concerned were told that there would be no delay in the appointment of t his accountant?

Sir E. GEDDES: There has been no avoidable delay.

Sir PARK GOFF: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the iron and steel works in Cleveland are often
out of work for two or three days owing to the shortage of wagons; to what extent is this due to the general bad running of wagons; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am unable to add to the general statement which I made to hon. Members on the 10th December, and in which I dealt with the position in the Middlesbrough district.

Sir P. GOFF: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the output of the new steel plant in the iron and steel works of Cleveland has increased 50 percent., and that in each of these works there are £50,000 to £60,000 worth of steel lying on the ground waiting for wagons?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that the output has increased, but the wagon-building capacity has not increased, owing to the War, and we need to overtake our arrears first.

Sir P. GOFF: Why did the right hon. Gentleman refuse the offer of 3,000 wagons per annum at £40 or £50 less per wagon than can be built at Woolwich?

Mr. REMER: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport how many firms in the United Kingdom are capable of building railway wagons; how many inquiries from that Ministry or from the various railway companies were sent to the railway wagon builders; whether their attention has been called to the statement that several large firms of wagon builders have never had an inquiry and are working short time; and whether they will take such steps to have specifications sent to them without any further delay.?

Sir E. GEDDES: I must refer the hon. Member to the general statement which I made on 10th December. The railway companies concerned have made numerous inquiries from wagon builders, the results of which I then quoted. Such inquiries are frequently made, and I see no reason to call for a return of the total number. In reply to the latter part of the question, I am, as already stated, anxious to put any firms who desire to quote for early delivery at reasonable prices in communication with the railway companies.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many wagon builders who have never been asked to quote for prices of wagons?

Sir E. GEDDES: If such firms will write either to the railway companies who are ordering the wagons or to me I shall be glad to deal with the matter.

Mr. SHORT: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to place orders himself?

Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the events of private firms giving orders for railway trucks, he will give an undertaking that such trucks will not be pooled?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am unable to give such an undertaking, as Clause 13 of the Ministry of Transport Act provides that the Minister shall not purchase wagons used for the conveyance of any particular class of traffic unless he purchases all privately-owned wagons so used, but I am afraid I do not quite understand what my hon. and gallant Friend desires to ascertain, and if he will confer with me I shall endeavour to satisfy him.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that no privately-owned wagons will be interfered with in any way whatever, and that this is the only way that the orders will be given?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot do that. The Ministry of Transport Bill provides that they may be.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Teeside Bridge and Engineering Company, Middlesbrough, have converted their munitions workshop into a wagon building shop, and although they are prepared to turn out over 1,000 railway wagons per annum, the North-Eastern Railway Company will only allow them to quote for one solitary wagon, notwithstanding the fact that this railway company is extremely short of wagons; and can he do anything to obtain wagons from this firm, provided the price is satisfactory, in view of the deficiency in transport facilities on the North-East Coast?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the arrangements made by this firm, and a communication received from them has been passed on to the Railway Executive Committee for communication to the railway companies interested. I am not aware of the negotiations with the North-Eastern Railway Company referred to,
but not long ago the general manager of the company stated that he was anxious to find firms able to build for early delivery at a reasonable price.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government decision to carry out locomotive wagon building at Woolwich, he will consider the claims of other similar establishments which have been solely devoted to the manufacture of munitions; and whether, in that case, he will investigate the claims to consideration of the Greet lands munition works?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Woolwich is in a very exceptional position, and in any case, I am informed that, as the factory and plant at Greetlands was designed for the production of chemicals, it would not be suitable for locomotive wagon building.

Mr. SHORT: Who placed the orders for these wagons at Woolwich—the Ministry of Transport, the Prime Minister, or the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not quite sure, but I think the railway companies.

RAILWAY COMPANIES' DIVIDENDS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will recommend the withdrawal of the guarantee to the railway companies of their pre-war dividends in order that there may be a greater inducement to the railway companies to effect more efficient organisation and greater economy in working so that traffic will be more expeditiously handled?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot recommend the withdrawal of the guarantee given to the railway companies, because it is in fulfillment of an undertaking entered into by the late Government in 1916.

PILFERING OF GOODS (RAILWAYS).

Mr. HANNA: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the fact of the increased extent of pilferage of goods during transit by land and sea; and if he will take immediate steps to prevent pilferage?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that there has been an increase of pilferage on the railways. and the companies are consequently insisting on the use of firmer packages where the rules have been relaxed during the War, and increased vigilance is being exercised to prevent pilferage. Sea transit is not within the
Purview of the Ministry of Transport. If my hon. Friend will suggest means of attaining the immediate prevention of pilferage, I shall give them my most sympathetic consideration.

MOTOR OMNIBUSES (DAMAGE TO ROADS).

Mr. RAPER: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the wear and tear to roads caused by motor omnibuses throws considerable expense on the local authorities; and whether he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation to provide for the payment of a fair mileage rate by the owners of private motor omnibuses to the highway authority?

Sir E. GEDDES: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead on Monday, 10th December, a Departmental Committee is now considering the whole question of the taxation of mechanically propelled road vehicles, with a view to advising on the simplest means of securing revenue to assist the highway authorities of the country in meeting the increasing cost of the maintenance and repair of highways. It is by no means certain that a mileage rate, as suggested, would be in the best interests of the highway authorities.

ROADS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. A SHORT: 90.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received the whole of the nominations for the constitution of the Roads Advisory Committee, and if he is aware that the delay in appointing this Committee is causing much discontent?

Sir E. GEDDES: Yes, Sir; I have now received the nominations and have appointed the Committee. I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following are the names:

Mr. F. Dent, County Councils Association.
Sir Kenneth J. Mackenzie, Bart., Association of County Councils in Scotland.
Mr. J. A. Brodie, M. Inst.C.E., M.I. Mech.E., Association of Municipal Corporations.
Major W. H. Prescott, M.P., Urban District Councils Association.
Mr. P. J O'Neill, J.P., Irish County Councils General Council.
The Hon. Sir Arthur Stanley, G.B.E., C.B., Royal Automobile Club.
Sir Wm. Joynson-Hicks, Bart., M.P., Automobile Association and Motor Union.
995
Mr. D. P. Maclagan, Royal Scottish Automobile Club.
Mr. E. White, Royal Irish Automobile Club.
Colonel F. S. W. Cornwallis, D.L., Royal Agricultural Society.
Mr. Will Thorne, M.P.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the motor representatives will be in the same largely preponderating majority as on the Lights Regulations Committee under the same Ministry?

Sir E. GEDDES: No; I do not think there is any undue representation of any interest, but perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until he sees the list?

Mr. SHORT: When will this Committee be called together?

Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as possible after they are appointed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will there be anybody on it representing the Cyclists' Touring Club?

METROPOLITAN STREET TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).

Sir F. HALL: 93.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there has been no reduction in the congestion with regard to street traffic; whether the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area) made several proposals for the alleviation of such congestion; whether ally of the suggestione have been carried out; and, if so, which?

Sir E. GEDDES: The steps which have already been taken to alleviate congestion at certain points are undoubtedly proving useful, but substantial alleviation cannot be expected immediately, seeing that this period of the year is necessarily the heaviest for street traffic. The Chairman of the recently-appointed Advisory Committee on London Traffic was also Chairman of the Select Committee, and is therefore aware of the suggestions referred to. The Select Committee reported that the evidence they had received showed the need for certain measures, and those which are considered immediately necessary and can be brought into effect without further legislation are being given effect to; these include better control of traffic, arrangements for stopping-places for omnibuses as for trams, and the formation of queues.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that no notice has been taken of the recommendation with regard to slow-going traffic, and that that is the chief factor in the congestion in many important streets; and will he immediately take steps to bring the suggestions on that point into operation?

Sir E. GEDDES: That is a matter which is having the attention of the Committee which has been appointed, and I would remind my bon. and gallant Friend that both Committees have the same Chairman, so that he is fully advised of the recommendations.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn some of the Fleet Street traffic down the Embankment, and so relieve the congestion in Fleet Street?

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Chairman of this Advisory Committee is the same as of the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area), we have no tangible knowledge that anything has been done on the lines indicated? Will he take steps in the matter? That is all I ask.

Sir E. GEDDES: The question is being considered by the Committee, and by the Technical Committees which they have appointed, and no single recommendation has been turned down. The whole question is being tackled as fast as inspection on the spot allows.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to have no answer to my supplementary question?

Sir F. HALL: I will repeat the question as soon as the House reassembles.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-GERMAN WARSHIPS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has as yet been arrived at by the Supreme Council with regard to the disposal of the ex-German warships and the "Goeben"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the great hardships at present borne by many
old age pensioners owing to the high cost of living, the Government will authorise local pension committees to make increased grants at once pending the final decision of the Government on this matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the Bill which passed through all its stages in this House on Friday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Viscount CURZON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any cases have occurred of trades unions using the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Act to prevent the employrnent of disabled or partially disabled ex-Service men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked to reply to this question. The only specific case which has been referred to my Department is a case at Ashton-under-Lyne in which, according to the statement of facts submitted to me, objection was taken by the union concerned to the employer operating five planing machines by three journeymen and two disabled soldiers, instead of by three journeymen and one apprentice. My Department arranged a conference between the employer and the workpeople's representatives for the purpose of trying to settle matters, but it has proved abortive, as the representatives of the trade union have insisted on prosecuting the employer before the Munitions Tribunal.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the union, the firm, and the rate of wages paid by the firm?

Sir R. HORNE: The firm involved is the firm of Austin Hopkinson and Company, of which one of the leading members is a very gallant and disabled soldier, who has taken a special interest in disabled soldiers. The union is the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The wages, speaking from memory, are these: Three journeymen employed previous to this change received respectively 66s., 64s., and 63s. a week, and the apprentice received lls. 6d. a week. Under the new arrangement for the employment of disabled soldiers each of the three journeymen receive 66s. a week, and the two disabled soldiers 45s. a week.

Sir H. CRAIK: Does the right hon. Gentleman find it absolutely impossible to bring home to the trade unions concerned the infamy of their conduct?

Mr. HARTSHORN: Has the right hon. Gentleman got into communication with the heads of the organisation in relation to this matter?

Sir R. HORNE: My impression is that there would have been no difficulty locally at all. The difficulty really arose with the executive from outside.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the only case throughout the country?

Sir R. HORNE: As I said in my written answer, this is the only specific case the details of which have come up to my Department, but, of course, it is perfectly well known that a ballot of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers has turned down the proposition for the employment and training of disabled soldiers. I do not think that there is any particular advantage at the moment in raising the question again with the heads, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hartshorn) has put it, of the organisation, because I have already been in communication with them. I hope that in the process of time they will come to take a different attitude towards the matter, but meantime I cannot speak with any confidence with regard to that.

Mr. R. YOUNG: Are the heads referred to the executive or the local district committee?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that I cannot exactly answer that question with regard to the specific case of Austin Hopkinson and Company, but I have met the leaders of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers with regard to the general question.

Major COHEN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst discharged men with regard to the facilities provided to them for training; whether he is aware that six months ago this matter was transferred from the Ministry of Pensions to the Ministry of Labour in order that the work should proceed more satisfactorily; whether he is aware that, since that transference, things are, if anything, worse; and, if so, what does he intend to do in the matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply to the first two parts of this question is in the affirma-
tive, and to the third part in the negative. With regard to the fourth, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 10th December to the inquiry of the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford East as to the prospective provision of adequate training facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

CHRISTMAS RELAXATIONS.

Viscount CURZON: 49.
asked whether the Government will consider some relaxation of the War Regulations of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) from Christmas Eve until 1st January, in view of the fact that this is our first post-war Peace Christmas?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on this subject to my hon. and gailant Friend on 11th December.

Viscount CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some hope of spending a reasonably happy Christmas this year?

Dr. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a reasonable quantity available?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a matter of opinion as to what is a reasonable quantity.

Mr. RAFFAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the desirability of our having a sober Christmas?

CARLISLE CONTROL EXPERIMENT.

Mr. CLYNES: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of impending licensing legislation, he would take steps to meet the wishes of a large number of the Members of this House by allowing Sir Edgar Sanders, the General Manager of the Carlisle control area, to address a private meeting of members in one of the Committee Rooms of the House on the actual working results of the Carlisle experiment in direct control of the liquor traffic?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If Members of this House desired to have a private meeting of this kind, I see no reason why it should not be held.

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been announced that the Chairman of the Liquor Control Board recently prevented Sir Edgar Sanders from addressing a meeting of the kind?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry I was not aware of it. I gave my answer simply on reading the question. It seemed to me reasonable that if Sir Edgar Sanders desired such an opportunity, he should have it. I will look into it.

Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether it is in accordance with precedent that a public official should address a meeting in the House of Commons on what is a highly contentious matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Surely my hon. Friend is mistaken as to the custom. I have heard many meetings addressed by subordinate officials where there was a desire to get information.

Sir J. D. REES: Will a meeting be called of the opponents of this policy?

Mr. SONAR LAW: I did not know it was a case of opponents and supporters. If the opponents attend they will be able to ask questions.

Mr. CLYNES: Is not this an experiment for which the Government is responsible and in which it is financially involved; and is it not desirable that we should have all the information?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my answer covers the reply to that question also.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SEAMEN.

PENSIONS.

Captain COOTE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to give the results of his consultation with the Board of Trade upon the subject of the pensions of merchant seamen injured on State service during the War; and whether he is aware that the highest pension at present payable to such men is 25s. per week, which is at once reduced to the full amount of any wages they may earn after discharge from hospital?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The pensions and allowances granted under the War Risks Compensation Scheme for the Mercantile Marine are now being revised, and full particulars of the alterations will be announced very shortly.

SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.

Mr. HOUSTON: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the wives and dependants of the men in the Merchant Service did not receive separation allowances from the Government, he can see his way to put the men of the Merchant Service on the same terms as regards gratuities as the men who served in the Army and Navy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reasons upon which the decision of the Government to give gratuities to men who served in the Army and the Navy was based do not apply to merchant seamen, who received considerable advances of wages during the War. The fact that their wives and dependants did not receive separation allowances would not affect the question of gratuities.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister himself and successive First Lords of the Admiralty, and Viscount Jellicoe and Earl Beatty, have spoken of the heroic efforts of those men as being equal to those of the Navy, and ought they not be put on the same footing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already informed my hon. Friend that steps are being taken to consider the pensions, but the question of separation allowances obviously does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BORDER STATES.

Captain COOTE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the projected alliance between the States on the fringes of Russia has been in any way promoted or assisted by His Majesty's Government; whether this country has now any official military or civil representatives in those States and, if so, where; and if he will consider the advisability of establishing a permanent mission of high standing in the Baltic States in view of the fact that the existence of these States under a stable and peaceable form of government is the best defence of Western civilisation against the spread of terrorism?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It has always been the endeavour of His Majesty's Government, without interfering in the internal affairs of the Border States of Russia, to promote relations of harmony between
them. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government are represented in Finland and Poland by Ministers in the Baltic States and in Trans-Caucasia, by Commissioners. As regards the third part, there is no reason for believing that the existing arrangements for His Majesty's representation in the Baltic States are in any way inadequate at the present time.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these States may be driven, for economic reasons, to make peace with the Bolshevik Government unless we come to their assistance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This question has been debated often in this House, and I am sure that I can give no useful information by means of question and answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not assist these States materially if they were recognised de facto as independent?

GENERAL DENIKIN (SUPPLIES).

Dr. MURRAY: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether any of the. money or supplies sent by this country to General Denikin was used for the purposes of Colonel Bermondt's forces which were till recently under General Denikin's direction?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right, hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer is in the negative. The hon. Member is mistaken in suggesting that Bermondt's forces were under General Denikin's direction. The latter refused to receive Bermondt's agents or hold any communication whatsoever with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS.

STATEMENT BY MR. C. HARMSWORTH.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 95.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the nature of the steps which are being taken to secure the release of British soldiers and seamen detained in Russia as prisoners of war, and of civilians; whether there have, recently been certain negotiations with Litvinoff upon the subject; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. HURD: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Soviet authorities are being urged to release at least wounded British prisoners now in Russia, especially in view
of the absence of adequate means of medical treatment there; and, if not, will the Foreign Office make an effort in this direction?

Captain HAMILTON BENN: 99.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the hon. Member for East Leeds has been instructed to impress on M. Litvinoff that the heads of the Russian Soviet Government will be held personally and individually responsible for the safety of all British subjects in Russia; and whether arrangements are being made for the dispatch of warm clothing and food to British prisoners in Russia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): In answering these questions, I should like, in view of the great anxiety felt by this House and the general public on the subject of the British prisoners of war and British civilians in Russia, to make a short statement of the negotiations which have recently been in progress at Copenhagen with the view of effecting their exchange. I intend, as soon as practicable, to lay Papers on the whole subject.
His Majesty's Government have for a long time past been endeavouring to secure the release of all these persons, and it will be within the recollection of the House that in May last a partial exchange was concluded, according to which two Bolshevik Commissars were returned to Russia.
The Soviet Government was informed in June that His Majesty's Government were prepared to exchange all the British prisoners of war against an equivalent number of Russian prisoners held by His Majesty's Government, and that, if permission were given to any other British subjects, who desired to do so, to leave Russia, similar facilities would be given to Russian civilians in this country. The Soviet Government were not prepared to consider these proposals, unless one of their representatives came either to England or to some neutral country to discuss the matter with a representative of His Majesty's Government. This was eventually arranged.
In view of what has since occurred, I would like to point out that, by the telegraphic correspondence which took place prior to the conference, the question was merely one of British in Russia and Russians in Great Britain.
The hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Mr. J. O'Grady) kindly consented to proceed to Copenhagen on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to meet Mr. Litvinoff in conference. The first meeting took place on 25th November.
The first proposal made by the Soviet Government through; Mr. Litvinoff was of a far more comprehensive nature than had been anticipated. In general terms, it was that they would release all British subjects in their hands, military and civilian, who could be immediately exchanged, and would give certain guarantees, to be mutually agreed upon, for removing the obstacles due to the blockade in the way of the return to their native country of all Soviet nationals residing in Europe—and, by Europe, Mr. Litvinoff stated that in this connection ho meant Great Arch angel, Murmansk, the Caucasus and Caspian districts, and even Persia, India, Germany, Austria, and neutral countries. The Soviet Government also wished to appoint representatives in neutral countries to be in communication with their nationals pending their repatriation.
In reply, the hon. Member for South-East Leeds proposed that the Soviet Government should release all British subjects, military and civilian, while His Majesty's Government would release all Russian prisoners and civilians who could be immediately exchanged, and would give certain guarantees towards assisting any Soviet Government nationals residing in Great Britain to return to their country as soon as arrangements could be made for their transport. In approving this counter proposals. His Majesty's Government pointed out that they were unable to admit that the exchange of British subjects for Russians could be made dependent on any-arrangements for the repatriation of Russians in Murmansk, Germany, or elsewhere outside British jurisdiction. They were, however, wiling to assist the repatriation of 1,700 Russians in Denmark, whose return Mr. Litvinoff was anxious to arrange.
The discussions were continued, but with very little progress, as the representative of the Soviet Government showed but little interest in Russian prisoners or civilians in Great Britain, and all his proposals continued to involve the exchange of prisoners of war in countries over which we have no jurisdiction. Further proposals were put forward by the hon. Member for
South-East Leeds, none of which were acceptable to Mr. Litvinoff, who finally stated that he would be ready to accept the following conditions:
The Soviet Government were prepared to exchange all British prisoners of war in Russia against prisoners of war in England, the return of such twenty-six persons included in a list of prisoners which he submitted as were still in captivity in North Russia, the Russian prisoners in Denmark, the Russian prisoners in Holland, Belgium and Switzerland, provided that the Governments of those countries should agree.
As regards British civilians, provided that the terms of the Clause about the prisoners of war had been carried out, he would be willing to repatriate all British civilians who wished to leave Soviet Russia in exchange for the return of certain Russians in Persia and Mesopotamia; of such of 190 persons who were still prisoners of war in North Russia, whose names he submitted; and provided that we should agree to request the Inter-Allied Commission in Berlin to return Russian prisoners of war in Germany to such parts of Russia as were in accordance with the wishes of the individuals; and that we should secure the appointment of a representative of the Soviet Government on that Commission.
He also proposed to remain in Copenhagen or some other place in Western Europe until the repatriation had been completed.
The hon. Member for South-East Leeds informed Mr. Litvinoff that these conditions appeared unreasonable, and the latter stated that, if a general agreement could not be reached he agreed to exchange our non-commissioned officers and men in Russia against Russian prisoners of similar rank in England, but this would, of course, exclude the British officers. He would also have been willing to arrange for partial exchanges, such as the return of all British women and children in Soviet Russia, in exchange for the Russian prisoners in Belgium, Holland and Switzerland.
I think the House will agree with the view held by His Majesty's Government that Mr. Litvinoff went to Copenhagen to discuss the Russo-British exchange, and that it was inadmissible to involve in these
discussions the questions of Russians outside the jurisdiction of His Majesty's Government.
In reply to these final proposals, His Majesty's Government stated that they, found it impossible to agree to the exchange of non-commissioned officers and men to the exclusion of the officers; that they were unable to agree to the suggestion that Russians outside their jurisdiction be covered by the negotiations; and also that the proposal concerning prisoners of war was so disproportionate that at least 2,000 Russians would be handed over against about 120 British prisoners of war. The question of the civilians did not at this moment arise, as Mr. Litvinoff had already made it conditional on satisfactory arrangements being reached about the prisoners. The hon. Member for South-East Leeds was accordingly instructed that, unless Mr. Litvinoff should modify his proposals, he should determine the negotiations; but he was informed that, should the breach occur, he should once again reaffirm that we shall hold the Soviet. Government personally and individually responsible for the wellbeing of our prisoners of war and civilians, who are in their hands, and that any subsequent accusation of ill-treatment by the authorities would he laid to the charge of these responsible.
On receiving this information, Mr. Litvinoff found it necessary to consult his Government, and on receiving their reply that they would not negotiate merely on the basis of an exchange of prisoners within British jurisdiction, he broke off negotiations.
The hon. Member for South-East Leeds has simultaneously been endeavouring to arrange for the dispatch of warm clothing, medical comforts and food to the British subjects in Russia. Mr. Litvinoff, who brought with him to Copenhagen some letters from the British prisoners of war, agreed to take back on his return letters from England, and, in return for permission to purchase and import a certain quantity of drugs, stated that he was willing to permit the transmission of clothing, etc. Final agreement has not yet been reached in this matter, but His Majesty's Government hope that it will be satisfactorily concluded.
It may eventually be possible to arrange for parcels to be sent by individual per-
sons, but at present we are trying to send the supplies referred to in bulk, under as strict guarantees as we can obtain for their safe delivery. We hope, too, to arrange for a monthly courier to take letters to the prisoners, and possibly also to British civilians in Russia.
This was the position up till Saturday last. On that day information reached us which led us to think that a basis for resuming the discussion might conceivably be found, and even that a solution might still be possible. Realising their responsibility in the matter, and sharing the anxiety which is universally entertained in this country concerning the fate of the British prisoners, His Majesty's Government decided not to let slip any opportunity that might present itself for arriving at a settlement, even at the eleventh hour, and instructed the hon. Member for South-East Leeds to re-enter into communication with the Soviet representative. Negotiations are not therefore suspended, and will be resumed when the hon. Member for South-East Leeds, who is coming home for a few days on urgent private business, returns to Copenhagen on 30th December.

Mr. HURD: May I ask if the question of the exchange of the wounded has been raised?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Not specifically up till now.

Mr. HURD: Will it be raised now?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is a point that will be discussed with the hon. Member for South-East Leeds.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether, in view of the very regrettable necessity for the hon. Member for South-East Leeds returning on private business, it would not be possible to continue the negotiations through some other channel; and will he consider also that there has been a very grave and serious delay in this matter, and that apparently from July till November nothing was done? Therefore, I hope the Government will press on with the negotiations without any avoidable delay.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My Noble Friend will observe that there was some advantage in our being able to consult personally with the hon. Member for South-East Leeds, but his recommendations will be taken into very careful consideration.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Will he see if it is not possible to include in the consideration with the seriously wounded those known to be seriously ill in Russia, both officers and men?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND PURCHASE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a growing desire on the part of tenant farmers in Wales to purchase their farms and also an equally strong desire on the part of the landlords to sell, and that the Welsh National Farmers' Union have passed a resolution in favour of a system of land purchase on similar lines to the Irish Land Purchase Bill; and whether he will introduce legislation on these lines?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are unable to consider the introduction of a Land Purchase Bill for Great Britain.

Sir R. THOMAS: My question was about Wales.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is included as a part of Great Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE ACT (1909-10) INQUIRY.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister when the Committee which is considering the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1919, with a view to reconsidering such parts as relate to the Land Clauses and Unearned Increment Duties in. the said Act, is expected to report its decision?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Report of the Committee has been laid upon the Table to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATY.

BELGIUM (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Colonel MORDEN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether any agreement has been made or is contemplated between His Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government enabling British corporations having branches in Belgium, and owning property in that country which has been damaged or destroyed by enemy action, to present claims through the Belgian Government so as to give them the priority provided by the Treaty of Peace for the restoration of Belgium and the compensation of Belgian interests?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No agreement of the kind indicated has been found feasible. Claims for reparation against the German Government in respect of property in Belgium owned directly by British corporations are registered at the Foreign Claims Office of the Foreign Office for presentation by His Majesty's Government. The question of the presentation of similar claims put forward by companies incorporated in Belgium, the shares of which are owned by British nationals, is now under discussion with the Belgian Government.

REPARATIONS COMMISSION.

Colonel MORDEN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the failure of the Senate of the United States of America to ratify the Peace Treaty will delay the setting up of the Reparations Commission; when is it anticipated that this Commission will commence its labours of adjudicating upon claims against the German Government, and in what order will they he dealt with; and whether it is proposed to issue any general instructions as to the principles upon which claims are to be formulated?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I understand that the Commission is prepared to set to work as soon as ratifications are deposited. Much preliminary work has, I understand, already been done. The order in which the Commission will deal with claims is a matter to be determined by the Commission itself. The British Government Departments concerned are engaged in consultation with the Governments of the Dominions and India in considering the principles on which the British Empire claims should be made up, and in preparing such claims for presentation to the Reparations Commission through the British delegate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.

Mr. RAPER: 61.
asked to what purpose it is intended to apply the balance of the National Relief Fund for the relief of distress arising through the War; and whether any steps can be taken towards applying such balance to the relief of existing distress in general?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that the Committee of the National Relief Fund issued a circular last week to the
councils of all boroughs and the larger rural districts intimating that the fund is available for the relief of distress directly due to the War, and suggesting the appointment of a. special Committee, if sufficient distress exists in the district, for the purpose of investigating such cases and administering Grants. In view, however, of the terms upon which subscriptions to the fund were invited, the Committee do not feel that they can apply it to the relief of distress which is not due to the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIPS (COMMERCIAL PURPOSES).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the R 34 and R 39, the two latest rigid airships, are to be sold for commercial purposes; and if he will allow one of them to be retained for the use of the Indian Government on the North-West Frontier of India?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am making inquiries in regard to the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL SCHOOLMASTERS (PAY).

Viscount CURZON: 67.
asked the Prime Minister what was the reason of the Government for not increasing the pay of naval schoolmasters in common with all other naval officers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. I gave the reason in the Debate on Navy Estimates on 10th December, columns 1469–70 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 122. It was, shortly, to the effect, as my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt remember, that as the pay of naval schoolmasters had been considered and increased at the end of 1918, and as they had received the ad interim increase of 1st February, 1919, their rates of pay appeared to compare favourably with the salaries of teachers in civil life.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that all grades of warrant officers received an increase of pay at the end of 1918, and why is the increase not extended to schoolmasters?

Dr. MACNAMARA: To the first part of the question the answer is, Yes. The latter part I have endeavoured to answer.

Viscount CU RZON: Is it not a fact that the highest grades of schoolmasters get only 3s. a day more than the lowest grade of warrant officers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand. I answered this question in the recent Debate, and I am afraid I cannot add anything to what has been said.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUGLAS-PENNANT INQUIRY.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he would reconsider the present system under which the House of Lords were able to appoint Committees of Inquiry against the wishes of the Government and of the House of Commons, as in the Douglas-Pennant case, and thereby to incur large expenditure and throw heavy burdens on the public purse?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated on the 10th December last this raises a very big constitutional question, and I do not think it is possible to deal with it by question and answer.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right lion. Gentleman give an undertaking to deal with the grave anomaly of the House of Lords appointing a Committee, and being able to throw heavy burdens on the public purse?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give that undertaking; I do not think it would be proper to do so. My own impression is that what has happened is calculated to make such a thing less likely to happen again.

Sir J BUTCHER: 69.
asked the Prime Minister the total cost thrown on the public purse by the House of Lords Committee on the ease of Miss Violet Douglas Pennant, including the costs to be paid by the Treasury of the officers against whom unfounded charges were made; whether he would state under what Votes each portion of this cost would fall; and whether the House of Commons would have an opportunity of discussing these Votes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer to my reply on the 10th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington. No further opportunity will arise of discussing the Votes referred to unless, owing to
the existing provision on those Votes being insufficient, it becomes necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that £10,000 was the total cost, including the cost to officers, that the public will have to pay?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

Mr. LYLE: 72.
asked the Prime Minister what subjects were now being considered by the Inter-Allied Conference other than the future of Turkey?

Lord R. CECIL: 75.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could give any information to the House as to the subjects to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of Prime Ministers at Paris; and whether the Government would do their best to publish as much as possible of the proceedings of such meeting?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The principal subjects to be discussed at the meeting in Paris will probably be the Adriatic question and the Peace with Turkey. There will, doubtless, be other matters of current importance which will be usefully discussed at such a Conference. As regards publication, I cannot add anything to the very full statement made by the Prime Minister in Debate on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOHENZOLLERN PRINCES (RESIDENCE).

Mr. LYLE: 71.
asked the Prime Minister to state the present places of residence of the various members of the Hohenzollern princes who are sons of the ex-kaiser; and whether the Allies had deposed any charges against any of them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Crown Prince is at present residing in Holland. I have no exact information as to where the other princes are living, but I have no reason to suppose that they are anywhere but in Germany. The reply to the last part of the question is that it is not possible at present to give any names.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS.

Mr. LYLE: 70.
asked the Prime. Minister whether he could state on behalf
of the Government that there would be no attempt on their part to nationalise the great voluntary hospitals; and whether he was aware that many such institutions were suffering at the present moment on account of charitable people holding back owing to uncertainty as to the Government's intentions?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): Yes, Sir, I can. As I have already stated in reply to a question on the 11th instant, the Government have no such intention.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (WALES).

Mr. HINDS: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had received representations from the agricultural executive committees in Wales calling attention to the difficulties they were experieneing in their efforts to get occupiers of land to cultivate their holdings in a husbandlike manner, with a view to increased fertility, and the consequent greater production of food; whether they were met with a rejoinder that it was not fair to farmers to be urged to expend labour and money on the improvements of their farms without adequate security that they would reap the benefit of their extra expenditure, and that this was now emphasised when so many estates were being sold, and where farmers had to pay a higher price for the holdings solely on account that it had been cultivated to the best advantage; and whether he would take steps to remedy the grievance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The whole matter of giving security of tenure is under consideration in connection with the forthcoming agricultural Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLDS (DILAPIDATIONS).

Mr. GILBERT: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the hardship which was inflicted on leaseholders of property whose leases were ending owing to the cost of carrying out dilapidations at the present time on account of the increased cost of materials and labour; and whether the Government proposed to bring in legislation on the subject or deal with it in any other way?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): My right hon. Friend has asked
me to reply to this question. My attention had not hitherto been drawn to the hardship referred to, nor am I aware of the extent of it. But I will make inquiries. It is evidently a matter which deserves in vestigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Lord R. CECIL: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could give any indication of What plans the Government had made for meeting the economic situation in Europe?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Discussions are proceeding with our Allies, and it is impossible to make any statement for the moment.

Lord R. CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement in. this morning's paper as to the action taken by the Secretary to the Treasury in the. United States is accurate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; I have not. heard of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lord R. CECIL: 77.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what steps had been taken to prepare for the work of this country in the League of Nations; and what Minister would be in charge of such work?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The necessary steps are being taken under the general direction of the Foreign Secretary.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of the steps taken?

Mr. SONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the Peace Treaty he will be able to gather them.

Lord R. CECIL: Is there anything contained in the Peace Treaty indicating what steps the Government will take?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My Noble Friend is much better acquainted than I am with it. He will know of the general steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. HURD: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether any communication had been received from the Canadian Government inviting the Imperial Conference of next
year to assemble at Ottawa; and whether, in any case, that suggestion would be considered favourably?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No such communication has been received. Both the date and place of the proposed Imperial Conference have still to be settled with the Dominions concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (INDEMNITY).

Dr. MURRAY: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state the amount payable by way of reparation or indemnity by Austria under the Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The amount is to be determined by the Reparation Commission as provided by Article 175 of the Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PROPERTY IN GERMANY.

Major Sir EDWARD COATES: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether provision could be made for the return of property in Germany belonging to British subjects, which had been sequestrated by the Germans, instead of compensation only being given; if such properties had been sold, that he would insist that arrangements should be made for their return to the British owners before the Treaty of Peace was ratified; and whether trade marks of these British firms could be included under the Peace Treaty in such sales and used by the Germans for export trading purposes?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. I am at present advised that the Treaty of Peace with Germany does not enable British subjects to require their property in Germany which has been sold under War legislation to be returned instead of compensation being paid. Special provision has been made for the return of trade marks outside Germany belonging to British controlled firms in Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Sir F. HALL: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether the settlement of the Irish question, for which the Government had made provision, had been submitted
to and agreed to by the parties who were represented on the Convention; and, if not, whether it was the intention of the Government to obtain the acceptance of their proposals by the parties representing the principal sections of the Irish people before introducing the new Bill, in view of the importance of reserving the time of Parliament for the consideration of measures that had a prospect of becoming law?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await the Prime Minister's statement on this subject.

EDUCATION BILL.

Major BARNES: 84.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the intention of the Government to carry a measure of self-government for Ireland, he proposed to re-introduce the Education (Ireland) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 89.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, pending the passage of the Education (Ireland) Bill, the Government will grant a bonus to the Irish teachers to enable them to carry on until the new scales of salaries come into operation or take steps to bring the new scales into operation at once?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that no such bonus can be promised.

Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the great disappointment thatexists among the teachers at the delay in regulating these salaries, and whether it would not be possible to make some such grant in advance, as the salaries date from the 1st April?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was cross-examined on this subject the other day. I can say nothing more than that the Treasury have examined it, and that the Government are not prepared to make a grant at present. The remedy seems to be to get the Bill through.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRIOULTURAL LABOURERS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: 88.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has reached a decision with reference to the inclusion of agricultural labourers in the Hours of Employment (No. 2) Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. Conversations between the interested parties are still proceeding, and at present I can make no statement.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects to be able to make a statement? It is a very important matter as affecting agriculture.

Sir R. HORNE: I am desirous of making a statement to the House as soon as ever I can, but I am still more anxious to get as much agreement as possible. A further meeting with the agricultural interests has been arranged for the first week in January, and, obviously, until that meeting takes place, I can say nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUGO-SLAVIA (BRITISH CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES).

Mr. A. SHAW: 94.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many British Consular representatives have been appointed for Jugo-Slavia; and what measures are to be taken to extend British trade there, in view of the great efforts now being made in that kingdom by other nations?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade - Development and Intelligence): Three Consulates and three Vice-Consulates have been approved for the territories included in Jugo-Slavia. Officers have already been appointed to the three Consulates and to one Vice Consulate, though, owing to various difficulties, only one of these officers—the Vice-Consul at Belgrade—is actually at his post at the present moment. With regard to the second part of the question, the following steps have been taken to extend British trade in Jugo-Slavia:

(a) Earlier in this year a Commercial Commission was dispatched, which returned with much information of great commercial value.
(b) The export credits scheme has been applied to Jugo-Slavia.
(c) It has been decided to appoint a Commercial Secretary at Belgrade, and every eqort is being made to find a suitable candidate for the post.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL INSUBORDINATION (NORTH. RUSSIA).

REVISION OF SENTENCES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (by Private Notice): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to announce the decisions of the Admiralty on the cases of the Royal Marines in Bodmin Prison for offences alleged to have been committed in Russia; and what. action is contemplated with reference to similar cases among naval ratings?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor), and other hon. and gallant Members for postponing their questions till I should be able to deal with these cases as a whole.
The Admiralty profoundly regrets the occurrence of these isolated instances Of insubordination on the part of men of the Fleet or of the Royal Marines, who have given such splendid and devoted service throughout the whole length of the great War. We have given these cases our most. careful and anxious consideration, and have decided to deal with them in what we believe the House will regard as a spirit of clemency.
About ninety men of the Royal Marines. in North Russia were found guilty of insubordination and refusal to obey orders while engaged in active operations. They were serving with the Army in the field and were sentenced by military courts martial.
Subject in all cases to good conduct in prison, we have decided on the following reductions in the sentences:
Of thirteen men sentenced to death—commuted by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief to five years' penal servitude—twelve to be released after one year; one to be released after two years.
Twenty men sentenced to five years' penal servitude, to be released after six months.
Fifty-one men sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, to be released after six months.
Special consideration has been given to the cases of men under nineteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offence in. question, in view of the Army instruction that young soldiers were not, if possible, to be employed in front-line
operations. Two of those who continued in a refusal of duty when others obeyed, will, in view of their youth, be released after serving six months. The remainder—six out of eight—have been released.
The extent to which it could be urged that bad leadership on the part of officers contributed to these incidents has been fully considered, and, where merited, disciplinary action is being taken.
I now turn to the Fleet cases.
A number of men broke out of their ships which had received orders unexpected by them to proceed to the Baltic, with a result that the sailing of the flotilla was jeopardised. The sentences on the ringleaders were as follows:
One leading seaman to two years' hard labour, and dismissal and forfeiture of medals; his imprisonment will be reduced to one year.
One leading seaman sentenced to one year's hard labour, dismissal and forfeiture, will be released after three months and retained in the Service.
One sentenced to one year's hard labour, dismissal and forfeiture, will be released after six months and his medals restored.
In addition, seven ratings who broke out and deserted, and refused to coal ship. Six of these men, sentenced to two years' or eighteen months' hard labour, will be released after six months; and one ordinary seaman, sentenced to a year's detention, will be released after three months.
The last case I have to deal with occurred in His Majesty's ship "Vindictive"in the Baltic, and the men concerned were dealt with summarily except two of the ringleaders who attempted to stop the fan engines, thus endangering the lives of their shipmates below. They were sentenced to five years' penal servitude; and the Admiralty will review the cases of these men after two years and one year respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT REGISTER (NAVAL APPLICANTS).

Viscount CU RZON (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of officers and men of like educational standing in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Reserve now retired or demobilised who are on the
register of the Appointments Department as candidates for (a) training, (b) appointments; with regard to those under (b), how many does he anticipate will still be unemployed and, therefore, without adequate means of subsistence, unless in posession of private means, by the 1st March, 1920?

Sir R. HORNE: As regards the first part of the question, information at the disposal of the Chief Naval Adviser, Appointments Department, shows that on the 19th December, 1,713 ex-officers and men of like standing of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Reserve were on the register of the Appointments Department for training, and 1,272 for appointments. As regards the second part of the question, the "live" register of naval applicants for appointments is now increasing at an average rate of thirteen applicants weekly. However, it is hoped that by the 1st March, 1920, the efforts of the recently appointed Naval Advisers and panels of business men in local offices of the Department will have been successful in greatly reducing the number of naval applicants requiring appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Brigadier-General COCK BRILL (by Private Notice), on behalf of Mr. Cozens-Hardy,: asked the Prime Minister whether any part of the sum of £26,000,000 set aside for the purpose of facilitating trade with certain of our Allies is now available for the development 6f British trade with Roumania; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to enable an adequate part of this sum to be used for this purpose?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to reply. No part of the sum referred to is at present being used for the development of trade with Roumania, but the question will be further considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S WAR SERVICES (DISABLEMENT).

Captain LOSEBY(by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House if he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the amelioration of the position of women who served His Majesty's Armies during the recent War, and who became disabled owing to, and in the course of, such service?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to say I have not received notice in time to make The necessary inquiries. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me communicate with him.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement upon this subject has been promised before the end of the Session, and can he not promise an answer to this question at some early date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am very sorry. I really did not have time to look into this matter, but I will see if it is possible to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — "EUROPEAN PRESS."

Sir J. BUTCHER (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a paper calling itself the "European Press," which is published in Berlin by a German company, which is sent here by post and distributed in this country through the British Post Office, and which contains matter highly offensive to the head of a friendly State, namely, President Wilson, and is calculated to stir up strife between this country and the United States?

Mr. SHORTT: I have seen a copy of the paper, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has sent me. The object of the articles to which he refers is no doubt, to make difficulty between this country and the United States, and the matter is under consideration.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult, with the authorities of the Post Office to prevent so grave an abuse of the privileges of the British Post Office?

Mr. SHORTT: That is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPLAR BOARD OF GUARDIANS EMPLOYES' SALARIES.

Mr. BLAIR (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health if he has already received a request from the Poplar Board of. Guardians asking him for his approval to merge all existing war bonus into salary, conditional upon the officer or workman being a member of his trade union or organisation, or becoming a member within one month from the 10th inst.: if so, or when he does receive such a request,
before coming to a decision, will he give this House an opportunity of discussing this policy of coercion and bribery?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a communication from the Poplar Guardians upon the question of the merging of war bonuses into salary, but the latter does not suggest the imposition of such a condition as is referred to in the question.

Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to inquire into the authenticity of the statement in this question, which discloses the most scandalous treatment of all those people who do not happen to he members of a certain specified trade union?

Dr. ADDISON: As I said, the communication received does not suggest the imposition of such a condition.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that he should make inquiries into this matter?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

NEW SCALE.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE (by Prirate Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he anticipates that it will be possible to pay Old Age Pensions at the new rates authorised under the recent Bill?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the statemend made by my right, hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this subject on the 19th instant that owing to administrative difficulties it will not be, possible to pay the increased pensions immediately. I anticipate, however, that it will be possible to make the payments about the middle of February. Any arrears which have accrued will, of course, be paid then. I hope that this notification will be observed by relatives and friends of old age pensioners, and that it will enable them, or encourage them, to make such arrangements as will tide the old age pensioners over the interval.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (VALUE OF RUPEE).

Sir E. COATES: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies what steps are being taken by the Imperial Government to relieve the financial situation and the serious loss to producers in British East Africa owing to the enormous rise in the value of the rupee?

Colonel AMERY: The matter has been receiving my most anxious consideration for some months past, and I hope to be in a position to make a definite announcement before the House meets again after the Recess.

NAVAL OFFICERS (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCE).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the children's allowance is to be taken away from all or any officers of the Royal Navy on 31st December, 1919?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In accordance with the decision of the Government, children's allowance will be withdrawn from all officers on the 31st instant, but the possibility of reintroducing it in a modified form in respect of certain particular cases referred to in the Navy Debate of 10th December is under consideration.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this allowance is given to all Army officers and all men of the Navy, and can the withdrawal of this allowance in the case of the officers of the Navy be justified?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask, as he has referred to the Debate on the Navy Estimates, whether the concession refers to naval schoolmasters?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the latter question, I was riot referring to naval schoolmasters at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMRITSAR DISTURBANCES.

LORD HUNTER'S INQUIRY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Pivate Notice): asked the Secretary of State for India whether, pending the result of the Hunter Inquiry, Brigadier-General Dyer has been relieved of his command; and, further, whether the Secretary of State has yet received a cabled report of General Dyer's evidence given before the Commission?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I may say I am in communication with the Viceroy on the whole matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Obviously this is too important a question to be dealt with in supplementary questions, and, therefore, I give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: In view of the importance of the Prime Minister's statement to-day, will the right lion. Gentleman the Leader or the house say what time it will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It must depend on the House. My Noble Friend who is responsible for getting t ire business through considers it absolutely essential that the Lords Amendments and other Resolutions must be taken first. I hope the House will not spend a long time on these discussions.

Dr. D. MURRAY: I put a question down to the Minister of Transport, and it was answered by the Financial Secretary to, the Treasury. Why cannot I have an answer from the Minister of Transport?

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter came within the Department of the Treasury. It was probably an application for money.

Dr. MURRAY: No, Sir.
Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—[Mr. Boner Law.]

LAND VALUES.

Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 243.]

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 244.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Fifth Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 245.]

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES BILL.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Sir Arthur Griffith-Boseawen.]

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Munro.]

BILL PRESENTED.

SEEDS AND WEEDSBILL.— "To amend the Law with respect to the sale and use of Seeds for sowing and of seed potatoes and to provide for the testing of Seeds and to prevent the spread of in jurious Weeds,"presented by Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Conduct Experiments.)

The Electricity Commissioners may, either by themselves or through any district electricity board or joint electricity authority established under this Act, or any authorised undertakers, or other competent body, conduct experiments or trials for the improvement of the methods of electric supply or of the utilisation of fuel, and, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board or."

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It may be convenient, perhaps, as this is the first of a series of Amendments, that I should state to the House as briefly as possible the arrangement that has been come to with regard to this Bill. It is the more essential that I should do so on the first opportunity, because the accounts which have appeared in the Press are so very wide of the mark and so inaccurate. The Bill itself was considered in this House at very considerable length. If my recollection is right, we spent nineteen days in Grand Committee upstairs and a very considerable number of days on Report. That in itself is sufficient to show that the Bill is one of very considerable magnitude, of very considerable complexity, and contains a number of details of a controversial nature. The Bill passed this House on the 28th November and went up to the House of Lords on the 3rd December. After considerable opposition it passed its Second Reading in the House of Lords, and it then became apparent that there was considerable opposition in another place to some of the provisions of the Bill. The question of electricity is not only of great importance, but of great urgency. It is not a matter on which we can afford to lose many months of time. Therefore, those in charge of the Bill and the Minister whose duty it will be to administer it, are faced with this difficulty. You have here a matter of grave and of urgent importance. You had a very short period of the Session left, and you had very serious opposition to certain provisions of the Bill in the House of
Lords. They, therefore, come to an arrangement which I shall ask the House to say was a wise arrangement, namely, that they shall take a portion of the Bill at once, and that, with regard to the other portion of the Bill, they shall bring it up again on the resumption of our duties next Session.
There is a considerable portion of the work which must be done, and which ought to be done as quickly as possible; and it can be done under the provisions that we retain. There is a considerable portion of the work which is not so urgent, which cannot be undertaken until the preliminary work is done, and that work is contained in the suspended portion. May I say at once that the Government has no intention whatever, if they can help it, of losing a single provision of the Bill as it left this House. We agreed to the arrangement that the Bill should be divided upon the clear understanding—it was made perfectly clear in another place—that we were not giving away anything, that it was merely a postponement, and that as soon as the House reassembled we should reinstate that portion of the Bill suspended for the present, and reintroduce it at once into the House of Lords. We feel, having regard to the considerable time that this House gave both in Grand Committee and on Report stage, and to the very valuable and careful work which was done by Members in all stages, we would be justified in asking the House to reintroduce next Session and pass, without any trouble at all, that portion of the Bill.
We felt that this House had considered the Bill carefully and passed it, and that, therefore, we were justified in the belief that this House would accept the reintroduction of the suspended portion of the Bill and passing it in a very few days. We, therefore, confidently hope that the Bill will be reintroduced into the House of Lords in the form in which it stood when. it left this House by the end of February or the beginning of March. A3'ter careful consideration, we were convinced by all our expert advisers that it would be quite impossible to be in a position to carry out the suspended provisions before March at the very earliest. We therefore felt—we ask the House to agree—that the wise course was to accept that portion of the Bill which the Lords were prepared to pass. As' to the rest of it the Lords said—and said with a very great deal of justification,
Here is a measure which took the House of Commons days in Committee and days on Report, a measure of great complexity and one with controversial details; you cannot ask us to pass that in a day or two without proper consideration." We felt that by taking that portion of the Bill which the Lords were prepared to give us, and which is amply sufficient to start an amount of work at once, and amply sufficient to enable the Minister in charge to start his system and his general policy and to make all his detailed arrangements, it would be well—I will tell the House briefly what powers we have kept—and the House of Lords could then have a fair opportunity of discussing the more controversial details which are not so immediately necessary and which we confidently hope will be carried into force at the beginning of next Session.
What we propose to ask the House to accept is this: That we should have the powers given to us to set up the Electricity Commissioners. That is the first essential, for upon them will fall the duty of co-ordinating and setting up a general national policy for our electricity supply. They will have the power at once to set to work and provide the country with the suitable and appropriate areas which will be defined under their orders. Having done that they will be entitled to hold all the necessary local inquiries, to consider how far any area is properly provided with electricity, and how far it is possible to set up a joint electricity authority in any area to carry out the improvements that they may consider necessary. The Commissioners will be able to make that provision. In addition to that, they will have power, up to the extent of £20,000,000, to at once take in hand the construction of any generating stations in any area which are found to be essential and which cannot be set up either by the adjacent authority or any local authority. They will be able to restrict the building of any further works by any other public or private authority who are authorised undertakers which would add materially to the public expense when each of the other provisions, namely, the suspended ones, shall be carried into effect. So that the Electricity Commissioners, as the Bill stands, and if accepted by this House is as it left the House of Lords, when they have been set up will be able at once to set to work, set up a public and national policy and a general policy
for electricity, and do the work I have enumerated. In addition they will have the full powers which this House gave them to take water for condensing purposes, and for water power, and use other appropriate means that may be available. There will also be concentrated in the Commissioners all the powers existing to-day in the various departments for the sanction of loans for purposes of electricity works, and so on. They will be able to deal With overhead wires, can protect the interests of all authorities from the highest to the lowest that may be affected by the provisions of the Bill, and they are empowered to carry out any works which are ancillary to those they have power over at present. All that stands over is the power to set up district boards.
May I remind the House that the district boards would only be set up in the event of the failure of any district to agree amongst themselves upon a joint electricity authority. That is the first thing to be done. Therefore, it is not until any district has failed to set up a joint electricity authority that the Electricity Commisioners will step in to set up a district board. It is highly unlikely that all the preliminary steps would be got through and all the local inquiries made, the various interests heard, and the various undertakers put forward their various schemes, and have those schemes considered—it is, I say, almost inconceivable that all these steps would be gone through before March. We, therefore, confidently hope that these things will be in existence and have been accepted by the House of Lords, as I have stated. There is the further question of the vesting in the district boards of the generating stations and the main transmission lines. This, of course, is a controversial question. There is the question of price to be paid. This aroused in this House a good deal of controversy and was fought, and keenly fought in Committee, and also upon the floor of this House upon Report. Manifestly it would be unfair to force, or attempt to force it through another place without any time for really considering whether the terms were just and fair. Further, until these Clauses are through the provisions by which the Treasury can advance the £25,000,000 to those authorities when they are set up has also been postponed.
I hope I have made it clear to the House that, first of all, there must be no
abandonment of any portion of the Bill. It has been stated in the Press that the House of Lords has emasculated the Bill; that they have taken out all that is good and destroyed it, and so on. No such arrangement has been made. There is no abandonment of one single term in the Bill as it left this House. When it comes up for discussion in another place later I do know that the Government are determined should any provision be defeated that they will ask this House to reinstate it. There is no question of any agreement upon a single term or provision of the Bill as it left this House. Simply because it seemed to the Government both fair and convenient that a portion of the Bill shall be postponed the Bill comes to the House as it does. What I would ask the House to do is to accept the Amendments; they are really practically drafting Amendments with the exception of that which divides the Bill. I shall ask the House to say that it is fair that there should be an opportunity for real discussion in another place, and that no harm can be done to the practical good which this Bill may effect by the suspension of a portion of it. The Electricity Commissioners will have ample work to keep them fully occupied until such period as the suspended portions have passed through the House of Lords. It seemed desirable that the House should be in full possession of the facts of the position. Therefore, in accordance with what I have said I shall ask the House to agree to the Lords first Amendment. The amendments are necessary to carry out the arrangement which, as I have said, the Government entered into in another place.

Mr. HOGGE: We are indebted to my right hon. Friend for the general statement which he has made in regard to the position of the Bill on this first Amendment. I do not want to prolong discussion, though I think it would be in order; but I want briefly to say that after all this is one example of one of the large Bills of the Session which, under the new 'Rules of Procedure, was sent to Grand Committee. Members of this House sat on the Grand Committee and devoted a great deal of attention to the Bill for considerably over a month.

Mr. MARRIOTT: For three months.

Mr. HOGGE: For three months. Well, then, that makes my case stronger. That time was well spent over the measure, which was examined with great care.
Why I am making this point is that one wants to facilitate the business of this House; it comes, therefore, as a surprise that after Grand Committee has spent about three months over the details of this measure, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gets up and says he has agreed to the position taken up by the House of Lords that they have not had ample time to discuss the intricacies of this Bill. After all, however, it is the business of the Government to see that their Bills reach the House of Lords in time to receive that ample discussion which the case necessitates. We have got to look into this question and see whether the alterations that we made in the Rules of Procedure at the beginning of the Session are ample to secure the passing of those Bills to which Members of this House have devoted so much time. I am not the least sure if the Government wish to give the House of Lords and the Grand Committees the consideration which they are entitled to from the work they put in, as to whether there should not be a date in the Session beyond which none of those large measures should be sent to the House of Lords. Every one of those large measures should be in Grand Committee before such a date as they will reach the House of Lords, in order to allow them to be returned after ample discussion. Presumably if my right hon. Friend did not intend to accept the Lords Amendment to this particular Bill the tendency would be to drop the measure or else to carry it over to the next Session. I make that suggestion, which I hope the Home Secretary will convey to those responsible for the business of the House. If you are going to succeed in getting large measures through you must fix the date on which they must leave Grand Committee. If they go beyond a certain date you have no right to expect the House of Lords to pass them through at the dictation of any Government. So long as the House of Lords exists it is perfectly entitled to discuss these questions.
With regard to this Amendment, I understand that what has happened is that the Lords have knocked out the compulsory boards and have accepted voluntary boards. They have given to those boards many of the powers that were to be given to the compulsory boards, and the position of the Government is that there is enough work for the Minister of Transport to do before the month of
March next in getting the proposals of this Bill into working order before the further powers are, given to him. This House ought to know if the compulsory boards are necessary, and will be contained in the amended form of the Bill which is to be introduced next Session. May I take it that the Government is prepared to press the amended Bill on the House of Lords?

Mr. SHORTT: Certainly.

Mr. HOGGE: The compulsory boards have been left out and the position now is that the Minister of Transport will not require them before March. When we come back in February I understand that what has not been agreed to in this Bill by the Lords is to be reintroduced into this House as supplementary to the existing Bill, and the Home Secretary hopes that this will not need much discussion, and that it will go straight to the House of Lords. If the Minister of Transport wants the compulsory boards and the Lords maintain the position they have taken up and will only agree to voluntary boards, will the Government then insist upon compulsory boards? I presume that is the case, and that means that the Government intend to carry out their intentions. On this point we only want to know exactly where we are. The main purpose for which I rose was merely to say that- if the Government intend to get those powers they must fix a limit on which all important Bills should emerge from Grand Committee to go to the House of Lords.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The very few words I wish to say will be couched in an almost entirely congratulatory tone. I want to congratulate the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hogge) on the admirable constitutional doctrines to which he has just given expression, and I can assure him that they will receive a very cordial echo on this side of the House, I mean in regard to the necessity for giving' adequate time for the consideration of Bills in another place. In the second place, I want to be allowed to congratulate the Government on the courage, rather tempered I admit by the speech of the Home Secretary, they have displayed, and which has induced them to make what I hope is going to be a clean cut in this Electricity Supply Bill. I want to ask the Government why they have waited until now to make this clean cut. Why did they not exhibit their
courage a little, sooner and in addition exhibit also the virtues of prudence and foresight? Those who have served on the Grand Committee upstairs, and I was one of them, have a serious ground of complaint against the Government in that we were called upon to spend two or three months moulding the details of a measure which has now been virtually abandoned.

Mr. SHORTT: No.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am aware that the Home Secretary has told us that we are going to be asked to reconsider these details next Session. I am dealing with the present Session, and the greater part of the Bill on which we spent our time upstairs I assert has been virtually abandoned, at any rate as far as this Session is concerned. On this point I speak the sentiment of the distinguished Member of this House who presided over the Committee upstairs, and he desires me to say on his behalf that in his opinion the Committee are entitled to an apology from the Home Secretary for the wasted time which has been expended on this Bill. From the legislative history of this Session one might suppose that a great deal of the work we have been invited to do was window dressing with a view to impressing persons outside this House. I do not myself believe that to be the real position, but the Home Secretary and the Government must be aware of the very serious suspicion they have incurred by the course they have taken. The Government have been in far too great a hurry to fulfil what they imagined to be the expectations of the electorate in regard to this and other measures of so-called reconstruction.
What is the result? We see it in the fate, as I think the well-deserved fate, of this Electricity Supply Bill. Thanks to the wisdom, not of this House, but of another place, this Bill and the Amendments we are asked to consider is now a very presentable piece of legislation. As originally brought in it was calculated to do a great deal more harm than good, but as it will leave us this afternoon I think it will be calculated to do a great deal more good than harm. We all admit that the electrical supply of this country and the electrical industry does need co-ordination and reorganisation, and that is particularly the case in the London area. I submit that this co-ordination and reorganisation can be accomplished under the Bill, as it is now presented with the Lords
Amendments, and accomplish its object far more effectively than under the Bill as it left this House.
As originally introduced this measure was bureaucratic both in spirit and texture. A Government Department clothed with compulsory and autocratic powers was authorised to call upon the existing electricity undertakers to stand and deliver their undertakings on the terms dictated by Parliament. Those terms as formerly in the Bill were a direct contravention of a deliberate Parliamentary bargain. All the objectionable portion of the Bill, in the calmer, more critical and more judicial atmosphere of another place, has happily disappeared. In particular the House of Lords has exercised, I think, a very wise discretion in cutting out all reference to the district electricity boards. I have gone very carefully into the Amendments carried in another place which are now about to be proposed to this House, and I am bound to say that it appears to me that the House of Lords has treated the whole of this very intricate problem in a very statesmanlike way. It has exercised a very wise discretion in omitting from the Bill all reference to the district electricity boards. I was one of the members of the Committee, and ninny others were associated with me, who took a very strong view on this point, and who, from the outset., held and maintained that the district boards, as originally drafted in this Bill, were far too cumbersome and unwieldy, and more than that, the expenses which were likely to be entailed by the setting up of this machinery would not conduce to achieving the main object of the Bill—that is, to secure a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. On the Third Reading I suggested that we should and in this matter where we ought to have begun—that is to say, by bringing together under 'a voluntary arrangement the managers and proprietors of the existing electricity concerns, and that we should erect upon that on a voluntary basis a national scheme of electrical supply. I congratulate His Majesty's Government that they have tardily arrived at the same conclusion, and I only wish that that wisdom had been vouchsafed at an earlier date, for it would have saved the Government and the Committee upstairs and the House at large much 'trouble and time, and possibly temper as well.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I wish to ask a question for the information of the House.
The suspension of a portion of a Bill is somewhat of an innovation, and I would like to ascertain from the Home Secretary in what stage the suspended part of the Bill will be reintroduced next Session. Will it come up altogether as a new Bill which will have to pass through all its stages as if it had not been previously introduced? Can he tell us exactly how the, Bill will come before this House or a Committee of this House next Session? There is only one other remark that I wish to make with the regard to the precedent which has been made by sending this Bill to a Grand Committee. Is time really saved by sending important Bills of this kind, in which large numbers of Members are interested, to a Grand Committee instead of to a Committee of the Whole House? It must happen in such circumstances that numbers of Members, who are not members of the Grand Committee, but. who desire to take part in the discussions on the Bill, will be able to go over the same ground 'as has been taken in Grand Committee, and the Report stage of such Bills, therefore, must take up much longer time than would be the case if they were committed to a Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course, it is a new precedent entirely, but we are considering how far it may be possible to save, this House the time and trouble of having to go over again that which has been so thoroughly thrashed out this Session. It there be no other way of doing it, we shall have to introduce it in the form of a new Bill, in which case we shall ask the House to pass it through all its stages with as little trouble as possible. We shall consult the authorities, and if it be possible to find some other means of doing it we shall adopt them. If not, we shall introduce it as a new Bill and ask the House to pass it through all its stages with as little trouble as possible, having regard to the fact that the whole matter has been thoroughly thrashed out and accepted by this House.

Major BARNES: Whatever else may be uncertain, the Government can always be sure 'that whatever happens to any part of-their legislation somebody will be pleased, and the hon. Member who has just spoken, is pleased at the course which has been taken in the House of Lords. This Bill has passed through a very curious course of events. I am not going to make any complaint about the time that we spent
upstairs in Committee. We were four weeks on the Bill, we changed the whole character of it, and we had hoped that we had made something of it. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and in a day or two they have taken out by far the larger amount of the work that we have put into it. We are told, however, that that which has been taken out this Session will be put back next Session. The District Boards have gone, and in their place the Joint Electricity Authorities remain. The District Board was the original proposal of the Government; when the Bill originally came before this House it contained no provision for anything else. The Joint Electricity Authorities were added by the Committee upstairs. Now the other place has removed the District Boards, the Government's original proposal, and the Joint Electricity Authorities remain. It all seems rather like one of these little arithmetical pastimes in which one sometimes engages, where you think of a number, double it, and then take away the number that you first thought of, and something remains. The Government thought of District Boards, and then they added Joint Electricity Authorities, now they have taken the district boards away, and the result is the Bill before us.
This Bill, like a good many other Bills before the House this Session, has been the battleground of two different kinds of view. Some of us looked upon the pro--vision of electrical energy as a great public enterprise. Others thought it was a proper field for private enterprise. The latter view has triumphed. That is the real position, and those of us on this side of the House quite recognise it. When the Bill first came before the House, those of us who thought that this service was one that should be a great public service had reason for hope that that was also the view of the Government, because their proposal was simply that of a District Board. It is quite true that the District Board was not entirely of a public character, but it was more than semi-public. It was to be a board upon which were to be seated representatives of local authorities, of Labour, and of other large interests. Those of us who were looking forward to the expansion of the public service had in that proposal real ground for believing that this was to be a great step in that direction. We had more than the action of the Government to justify us in that belief. We had the
whole history of electrical enterprise, because almost from the very beginning it appears to have been recognised in this House and in the country that, while in the earlier stages of electrical enterprise the work should be carried on by private enterprise, yet ultimately it should come into the hands of the public authorities, and with the exception of the power companies, which came along at a later stage, the companies were always subject to the provision that some time or other the public authorities should have the power to purchase them. When this Bill came forward, therefore, we thought that that was going to be hurried up. We thought that a great public authority was coming into existence which was going to exercise these powers, I will not say prematurely, but before they were expected to be exercised, and that the result of the Government measure would be a great electrical service carried on, not necessarily from Whitehall, but at all events by public authorities using public money.
When the measure came before us in Committee it was very strongly opposed, and by nobody more ably than my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Marriott), and I congratulate him upon his triumph. We had it very strongly pleaded that before the Government proceeded to so drastic a step they should at all events give the undertakings the chance of coming together under a Joint Electricity Authority. That seemed to be a reasonable thing, and, the Committee being composed of reasonable people, they adopted it, and the Bill left this House with alternative proposals. It was open to the public authorities and the undertakings in any area to come together voluntarily, and if they could not do that, they were to be compelled to come together under a district board. In the other House, that choice has been withdrawn. A number of Members who sit for constituencies on the North-East Coast have taken steps to call together a conference of local authorities to decide whether they will combine with undertakings in that area to form a joint electricity authority or whether they will combine with the object of getting a district board. That choice has gone, and there is no course open to them other that that given in the Bill as it comes down to this House. It may be said that this is a very proper principle on which to proceed. You should first try and get what you want by voluntary agreement, and afterwards, if you
cannot do so, proceed by compulsion, as you did in the case of the Army. I understand that the position of the Government is that they think that no harm will result between now and next Session by the application of the voluntary principle; but, if that principle fails, then they will come forward with a Bill next Session.

Mr. SHORTT: Not only if it fail.

Mr. MARRIOTT: In any case.

Major BARNES: In any case? The position of the Government can hardly be that, if in any area they have succeeded in getting a joint electricity authority under way and have invested it with all the powers under this Bill, they are then next year going to replace it by a district board. Obviously, that cannot be their position. They can only do that where they fail. I should be glad to have this matter cleared up. I will put it to the Home Secretary. It will be only in such areas where they fail to establish a joint electricity authority under this Bill that they will apply the provisions of any succeeding Bill by setting up district boards.

Mr. SHORTT: The new Bill will be that portion of the Bill as it left the House of Commons that has been taken out. It will simply bring it back to the old form, with the old powers, and the old proceedings—everything as it left this House. There will be no change.

Sir F. HALL: Provided it passes the House of Lords.

Major BARNES: Under the Bill as it left this House we had two alternatives. First of all, you tried to set up a joint electricity authority, and then, if you failed, you set up a district board. Now the district board has gone, but we are promised that a Bill reintroducing it shall be brought in next Session. I put it to the Home Secretary that what he means is that if the experience of this Bill shows that he cannot get what he wants by the voluntary principle he is going to bring in a Bill to apply compulsion?

Mr. SHORTT: No; that is not the case. The only reason we have dropped out this portion is because the House of Lords has not time to discuss it. We intend, however, to press it. It is not a question of getting experience in the meantime. We are gong to bring it in in any case.

5.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: It is an extraordinary position. We have a Bill to set up what
We are told is a great system of electrical generation in this country, which we have been assured by the Government is one of the things most needed. This Bill is a complete measure in itself, and, if the voluntary principle be successful, there will be no need from the standpoint of the generation of electricity to bring in any other measure. That is the position, and the only reason for bringing in any other measure will be the failure of this Bill. Your Bill next Session will be an Electricity Supply (Additional Powers) Bill, just as you brought in an additional Housing Bill because your first Housing Bill failed. That is the real position. Something more has happened in the other House than the mere dropping out of the compulsory portion of the Bill. Under the Bill as it left this House you had joint electricity authorities which came together by agreement and which had practically no compulsory powers vested in them. You had these district boards which were furnished with very considerable powers under the Bill. What has 5.0 P.m. happened in the other House is not merely that the district boards, with all their powers, are dropped out, but something much more. While the district boards have dropped out the powers which were supposed to he conferred upon them have been handed over to the joint electrical authority. That is a serious step. Let me give one concrete instance of what it represents. It is a case which affects the city which both the right hon. Gentleman and I have the honour to represent. Under the Bill as it originally left this House, the district boards were given the right which local authorities already had, of purchase, and when the district board was set up all rights at present vested in the local authority for the purchase of electrical undertakings became vested in the Board. The city of Newcastle-on-Tyne has been expecting, some years hence, to acquire the electrical undertakings in that city. Under the Bill as it left the House, that hope was taken away from it and the right to purchase vested in the district board. But, at any rate, the district board which was to be set up wag one on which they would be represented. Now, however, this right of purchase is taken away from the local authority and given to a voluntary body—the joint electrical authority, and that appears to me to be a very serious step. It is one thing to take away rights from one public authority and give them to
another, but it is a very different thing to take those rights from a public authority and give them to a private body. Yet that is what you have done here.
In the speech of the hon. Gentleman apposite (Mr. Marriott) gladness was tinged with sorrow; in my own remarks, sorrow is tinged with gladness. I think the House of Lords are to be congratulated an having cut out the fantastical provisions for compensation. There is no standard price in the Bill. The joint electrical authorities may make such arrangements as they care to agree to with the owners of undertakings. I would ask the Home Secretary for more information on that point. I would like to know whether the Electricity Commissioners, when they are approving any scheme for setting up a joint electricity authority, will put in any provisions controlling the purchase price to be paid by the joint authority for any undertakings which may be acquired by agreement? I think that is an important point, as otherwise undertakings may be taken over at a price very much above their real value, and joint electrical authorities may be set up with capital very much in excess of the real value of -the undertaking. We were told all through the discussions on the Bill that the object of the Government was to give a cheaper supply of electricity, and that was their justification for adopting standard prices. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether any safeguards are contained in the Bill which will prevent the joint electrical authority being hampered by great additions of altered capital? I think the Bill as it stands is a complete measure in itself. It originally raised the question of public versus private enterprise, and the Government have now dropped down on the side of private enterprise and given voluntary effort its chance. We shall watch the operation of the Bill, believing the Government will be compelled, in may parts of the country at least, to call in the application of the compulsory powers which are promised in the Bill which we are told is to be brought is next Session.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HOARE: It was rather interesting to those Members of the House who sat for nineteen solid days in Committee on this Bill to hear the statement made by the Home Secretary to-day. I suppose we may take it that the Bill is wrecked. That was the suggestion made by the right lion. Gentleman when any of
us put forward. Amendments with which he did not agree. We were told that the carrying of them would result in the wrecking of the Bill. How can the right hon. Gentleman explain the Government attitude to the Amendments brought forward in another place? How can he suggest that the Government intend to carry the whole of the measure as passed through this House? He is doing nothing of the sort. The Government has been forced by pressure to admit that it is not desirable that a Bill of this magnitude should be passed into an Act of Parliament. I ventured during the Committee stage to draw attention to the enormous amount of money that would be required in order to finance the scheme, especially under the compulsory purchase powers. In order to take over these private undertakings, the Government would have had to find money, and the difficulty which faced them in that direction may constitute one of the reasons why they have decided not to go on with the Bill. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) in congratulating some members of the Government at least on having realised that the Bill was a stupendous mistake.
I well remember, on the Clause dealing with the amount of money required for purchase, it was stated that the price to be paid was the cost of the land, buildings and plant, "less depreciation." In discussing that matter in the House previously I had ventured to point out than the words "less depreciation" came in by mistake, and were only accepted by the Home Secretary because the Government were going to get an advantage in a surreptitious sort of manner, which they should never have done from private undertakings, because the Board of Trade, which is only a watching Department in this case, after carefully examining all the facts, sent a circular to Members of the House indicating that the price that should be paid should represent the cost of the land, buildings and plant only. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought not to be a party to any breaking of a Parliamentary bargain, and I must express my opinion that the alteration in this. Bill does restore to Parliament that credit which the British people have always given it, namely, that a bargain made by the British House of Commons is one that, will always be respected. If the right hon. Gentleman has been able to maintain that position for
this House by cutting down this Bill, it affords us good grounds, at any rate, for congratulation. The right hon. Gentleman must have heard a. vast amount of criticism by people in regard to this measure. One had only to go into the City of London, where even Governments have to go in order to obtain the necessary finance, to hear people say, in regard to this scheme, "We are not prepared to go into it, even although it has Government sanction. We have no guarantee that the sanction given by the House of Commons will be adhered to." That is a very serious charge to make against this House. The Act of 1888 laid down most plainly the terms upon which, in the event of electrical undertakings being purchased, they should be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the times are now different, that the value which has to be paid for articles differs, and he said "in 1888 it was not supposed that money would have been on such a different basis to what it is at the present time." That is neither here nor there. Arrangements entered into by this House must in any circumstances be adhered to.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question. It has been suggested that under this Bill there is a possibility of some charge being made on the rates. I have looked carefully through the Bill and find no such power contained within it. I hope, therefore, that whoever replies on behalf of the Government will make perfectly plain the position in that regard. We are told that this Bill is going to reappear next Session; to use the phraseology of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government intend to force this Bill through another place. If that is the fact, then I think it will be a very bad thing for this House. Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that although there may be a Second Chamber, members of his Majesty's. Government in this House intend to say to the other House, "We have passed the Bill; we have used the necessary machinery that -is in our power in the House of Commons, irrespective of details on decisions that have been arrived at by members of the Grand Committee which sat on the Bill day after day and week after week, irrespective of the decisions that they came to by 20 votes to 4, we reversed those decisions because they did not suit the policy of His Majesty's Government, and we are going to use the same
machinery notwithstanding any careful consideration that may be given to the matter in another place, notwithstanding the decisions that may there be arrived at, you may just as well save your time, instead of devoting it to considering this Bill, because, as the Home Secretary told the House of Commons on 22nd December, it is our intention to force the measure through the other House." I hope nothing of the sort will be attempted.
I was one of those who were of opinion that it was necessary there should be what were called "watchers" in the shape of Commissioners, and I hope that those Commissioners, notwithstanding that the District Electricity Boards are no longer to be set up, will give their attention and be prepared for the time when, in 1932, the purchasing powers of the Act come into operation. Let them provide themselves with all the necessary data, so that instead of making up their minds to go forward with this huge purchasing body, which is wanted practically by nobody, they will be in a position to take action which will be of benefit to consumers at large. From what we know of private enterprise, we know that as a rule you get the best results from it because of the competition. At the same time you want that watching board so as to be prepared when the purchasing time comes, and if the Government will leave the electricity scheme as it is under the Bill as revised, then I think that, although we spent many days in criticising the Bill in Committee, the members of that Committee will be able to congratulate themselves that they succeeded in bringing out the ill-effects that would be wrought by the measure.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I also was a member of the Committee upstairs, but I am riot going to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) in demanding an apology from the Home Secretary for the course which he has taken, because I think it is a wise course and one for which he has ample justification in the circumstances. But it appears to me that a great deal of misconception has arisen as to the importance of that part of the Bill which is going to be omitted if the Lords Amendments are agreed to. In the review of the proposals of the Lord Chancellor in the "Times" newspaper, no mention was made at all of the fact that there were joint electricity authorities set up by the Bill, and if I
may remind the House of what the Bill as amended in Committee of this House provides, I would like to say that, first of all, the Commissioners hold an inquiry and ask all those who are interested in the supply or the use of electricty to see whether they cannot formulate a scheme for a joint authority It is only if they are unable to formulate a scheme that the Commissioners come in and may then formulate such a scheme themselves, and it is only when both fail that the question of a district electricity board arises at all, and even then no board need be set up, and it is open to the Commissioners to say that it is unnecessary to have a board for the particular district and to allow things to go on as they are. Therefore, it seems to me that an altogether undue importance has been attached to these Clauses and different parts of the Bill which it is now proposed to leave out, because they would only have become operative in any case if schemes for the setting up of the district authority had completely failed.
I was a little concerned to hear what the Home Secretary said as to his intentions next Session, and the indications that he let drop of some possibility of proceeding otherwise than by the introduction of a new Bill He said the intention of the Government was merely to put together into a new Bill those parts of this Bill now left out and to introduce them without change and without waiting for any experience of the operation of that part of the Bill which we are to pass to-day. I think it was one of the Prime Ministers who said, "I do not care what the decision of the Cabinet may be, but let us all tell the same story." This Government has not been altogeteher fortunate in telling the same story, and the Home Secretary, in this particular instance, has not escaped the fate that has already overtaken some of his colleagues, because I happened to be in another place when the Lord Chancellor introduced these Amendments, and his account of the intention of the Government was very different from that of my right hon. Friend. I heard what he said in another place. It is true he agreed with my right hon. Friend that the parts that were to be dropped now were to be introduced next Session, but he said it would be with such modifications as may seem right to the Government and as may appear to be desirable in view of the experience of the Commissioners of the working of that part of the Bill which is passed
during the present Session. I venture to think that that is the more statesmanlike course. We have got really a complete Bill in the amended Bill as it stands to-day.
The part that has been dropped out is, as the Home Secretary himself pointed out, a part that cannot in any case come into operation for a considerable time. Why tie yourselves and the House to the introduction of a new Bill reproducing the compulsory Clauses immediately the new Session opens? Why not give the Bill as it stands a little time to work, and, if you then think it desirable to introduce these Clauses again, do so, but give yourselves the opportunity of making improvements if experience shows that improvements can usefully be made. For my part, I feel very certain that improvements can usefully be made, and I believe that a little experience would show that clearly to all concerned. I have never been enamoured of the constitution of these district electricity boards, with their representatives of local authorities, of Labour, of large consumers, and of all sorts of other miscellaneous people, who will have nothing in common but the fact that they serve on the district electricity board, and perhaps have to come from considerable distances,- and who, I am afraid, are likely to make very serious mistakes. I would have preferred a different composition altogether, and I rise for this purpose, to ask the Home Secretary to be guided by experience and to adopt the Lord Chancellor's view of the case rather than that which he has put forward, I hope somewhat hastily, this afternoon, and not to commit himself to introducing a new Bill at any particular time, but to allow the necessities of the case themselves to speak and to bring in his Bill in the light of such experience as may usefully be gained.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I appreciate fully the very great pressure on the time of the House to-day, but I desire to put very briefly indeed the point of view of Labour Members who took part in the prolonged discussion of this Bill, not only in Committee but also on the Report stage in this House. We started with the ideal of a Bill which would be complete, mainly from the point of view of public utility, and also from the point of view of the voluntary agencies which are supplying electricity in this country, and we believed that attitude to be consistent with the report of the Committee which had gone fully into this question in Great Britain
In the progress of the Bill through Committee we saw Clause after Clause watered down, conditions abated, and terms altered and modified, until at the end of the proceedings we were profoundly dissatisfied with the state of the Bill as it emerged from the Committee. I have no desire now, and there certainly is not time, to go back on that controversy, but I do think that the Government could probably employ or adopt a better policy at this moment than the one they are now suggesting to the House. What will happen if the course which is proposed is adopted? I gather that all the Amendments on the Paper will be adopted, the Bill will be modified by taking out of it—and it is weak enough even as it is—a very great deal that is valuable, and these Clauses and provisions will then fall to be put together in some new Bill to be introduced in the new Session. The consequence will be that we shall proceed towards the coordination of the supply of electricity in this country early next year under two Acts of Parliament—under this abbreviated and attenuated Act that we are now passing, and under a new Bill which is to be introduced to make up for the loss which we are incurring to-day. On that point there is not the slightest certainty whatever that we are going to get the provisions which we are giving up at this hour. Hon. Members below the Gangway have indicated that in another place the Bill, or the proposals now being lost, will be modified or altered, and that, I think, points to this conclusion, that we shall not get in terms of the Government's own Bill at present, that scheme of co-ordination which is absolutely necessary if this business is going to be a success in the country. That, I think, from the point of view of impartial Members of this House, is certainly a very undesirable result, and rise mainly to make this proposal or suggestion with all respect to the Government.
Rather than proceed under two Acts of Parliament, as we shall be doing ultimately, which may not be easily reconciled with one another at all, and which, if the views of the members of another place axe expressed, will not be reconcilable with one another, would it not be infinitely better to-day, especially as we have, not time to consider these Amendments in detail, to pass only such brief Clauses, say one or two or more, providing for the appointment of the Electricity Commissioners and such immediate duties
as would fall to these Commissioners, and leave the rest of this problem for consideration after the Recess, when we could introduce a proper Bill and see that the landscape is filled, so to speak, on which these Electricity Commissioners might work? Is there any real loss in the proposal which I venture to make? I think not, because even if the Electricity Commissioners were merely appointed and their preliminary duties pointed out, it is quite clear, that that would occupy three or four or more months of time in this country, and we should be then in a position to come along and tackle the business, not de novo—I do not suggest that for a moment—but in the light of the experience we have gained, and put together a Bill much more effectively than we can do now. I feel very strongly, and I venture to protest most vigorously indeed from these Benches against being called upon, on a day like this, when there is other very important business to come before the House, to consider ten pages of Amendments covering the whole of the Bill, the effect of which Amendments we have not had time to appreciate and which we have absolutely no opportunity of debating at length. I think it is thoroughly bad business, if I may say so. It is against the interests of the co-ordination of the electricity supply of this country, and I appeal to the Government to adopt the modified policy of appointing their Commissioners, indicating their preliminary duties, and leaving the rest of the business to be tackled with proper time and in a proper spirit after the Recess.

The Minister of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I understand that the proposal of the hon. Member who has just spoken is that we should even now introduce a new Bill of two or three short Clauses rather than go on with this Bill as amended by the Lords. I think that really the decision that we had to take was whether, in view of the short time allowed the Lords to consider this Bill, we would lose the whole Bill this Session or get a part of it, and I can only confirm what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there is no intention on the part of the Government of dropping the valuable provisions, which have not been by our agreement cut out of the Bill, but merely postponed. It is purely a postponement, so far as this Government is concerned, and the House will he invited as early as possible next Session to re-
affirm the decisions which it had taken when the House sent it to the Lords, and the Lords will be invited to pass the Amendments as we sent them up before.
As to what the hon. Member (Mr. Chamberlain) says, there is no difference of opinion between the Home Secretary's statement and that of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor said a now Bill would be introduced embodying practically the same provisions as were being now postponed, and that is the intention of the Government, and we hope we shall have the assent of the House to dealing with the matter very speedily when we reassemble. In the meantime We are given enough power to go on with the appointment of the Comissioners, with the delimitations of the districts, and with the invitation and other encouragements to the joint electricity authorities to create themselves on approved lines. It is inconceivable that as the House and the Grand Committee desired that opportunity for private enterprise should he given, their failure to take their opportunity in two or three months could have resulted in the district electricity board with all its powers being brought in. We should be bound to give them two or three months, and therefore, after very careful consideration of the problem. we had to decide, and, after consultation with the experts, we came to the conclusion that we were really losing no time by going ahead with the portion of the Bill We are given now, and that if. as we believe., the House will reaffirm its opinion early next Session we shall have additional powers from the Lords—and I believe there will be a better chance of getting them than if we tried to force them now—in ample time to make use of them as soon as it becomes necessary.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: After the word "fuel," insert the words "or waterpower.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Advisory Committee.)

The Electricity Commissioners may appoint a Committee or Committees consisting of chairmen or other members of district electricity boards and joint electricity authorities established under this Act, or representatives of authorised undertakers or other specially qualified persons for the purpose of giving to the Commissioners advice and assistance on such matters connected with the general improvement and development of the supply of electricity as may be referred to the Committee by the Commissioners, and the Ctommissioners
shall take into consideraton any representations which have been made to them by any such Committee.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity boards and."— Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Reorganisation of Supply of Electricity.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners may provisionally determine that any district in the United Kingdom shall be constituted a separate electricity district for the purposes of this Act., and in considering what areas are to be included in a district, areas shall be grouped in such manner as may seem to the Commissioners must conducive to the efficiency and economy of the supply of electricity and to convenience of administration. Before finally determining the area of any such district the Electricity-Commissioners shall publish notice of their intention so to do and of the area proposed to be included in such district. and shall also give notice thereof to all county councils, local authorities, and authorised undertakers any part of whose county district or area of supply is proposed to be included in such district, and if any objection or representation be made on account of the inclusion in or the exclusion from the proposed district of any area the Electricity Commissioners shall hold a local inquiry with reference to the area to be included in the proposed district:
(4) If it appears to the Commissioners that no satisfactory scheme can be formulated under the foregoing provisions of this Section, they may, if they consider it necessary, propose a scheme for the constitution of a district electricity board for the district.
(5) The Electricity Commissioners shall publish, in such manner as they think best adapted for ensuring publicity, any scheme which they have approved, with or without modifications, or which they have themselves formulated, or a scheme for the constitution of a district electricity board, and shall hold a local inquiry thereon.
(6) A scheme under this Section may provide for the establishment and incorporation with power to hold land without licence in mortmain of a joint electricity authority representative of authorised undertakers within the district, either with or without the addition of representatives of the council of any county situate wholly or partly within the district, other local authorities, large consumers of electricity, and other interests within the district, and, subject as hereinafter in this Act provided, for the exercise by that authority of all or any of the powers of the authorised undertakers within the district, and for the transfer to the authority of the whole or any part of the undertakings of any of those undertakers, upon such terms as may be provided by the scheme, and for applying in relation to the joint electricity authority any of the provisions of this Act relating to district electricity boards including the provisions as to borrowing, lending, and giving financial assistance by and to those boards). and the scheme may contain any consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions which appear to be expedient or proper for the purpose of the scheme, including provisions dealing with any right of
purchase of any undertakings affected by the scheme and provisions determining the area included in the district:
Provided that no such scheme shall provide for the transfer to the authority of any part of an undertaking other than a generating station or main transmission line except with the consent of the owners thereof, and that unless otherwise agreed the price payable on the transfer of a generating station or main transmission line shall be the standard price hereinafter mentioned.
(7) A scheme for the establishment of a district electricity board shall incorporate the board -with power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and shall provide for the inclusion, as members of the board of representatives of county councils, of local authorities, companies, and persons who are authorised undertakers within the district, of railway companies using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes, of large consumers of electricity within the district, and of labour, and, where any borough or district councils (not being authorised undertakers) or the Electricity Commissioners agree to afford financial assistance to the board in manner provided by this Act, also of representatives of those councils or persons nominated by the Commissioners, and the members shall be appointed or elected in such manner, and shall hold office for such term, as may be provided by the order.
The scheme may provide for enabling the board to delegate, with or without restrictions, to committees of the board any of the powers or duties of the board, and for the payment out of the revenues of the board of travelling and subsistence expenses of members of the board and reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(8) The Electricity Commissioners may make an order giving effect to the decisions they arrive at as the result of the inquiry, and present the order for confirmation by the Board of Trade, who may confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit.
Any such order shall he. laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, tort shall not come into operation unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each such House, and when so approved shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(9) An order made under this section may be altered by a subsequent order made, confirmed and approved in like manner- as the original order, and any such subsequent order may provide for the dissolution of a joint electricity authority and the substitution therefor of a district electricity board.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "such"["included in such district"], and insert instead thereof the words "the electricity."—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (4).—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "or a scheme for the constitution of a district electricity board."—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-sections (6) to (9) inclusive.—Agreed to.

After Clause 5 insert new Clauses A and B

CLAUSE A.—(Joint Electricity Authorities.)

(1) A scheme under the last foregoing Section may provide for the establishment and (where desirable) the incorporation with power to hold land without licence in mortmain, of a joint electricity authority representative of authorised undertakers within the electricity district, either with or without the addition of representatives of the council of any county situate wholly or partly within the electricity district, local authorities, large consumers of electricity, and other interests within the electricity district, and, subject as hereinafter in this Act provided, for the exercise by that authority of all or any of the powers of the authorised undertakers within the electricity district, and for the transfer to the authority of the whole or any part of the undertakings of any of those undertakers upon such terms as may be provided by the scheme, and the scheme may contain any consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions which appear to be expedient or proper for the purpose of the scheme, including provisions determining the area included in the electricity distrist:
Provided that no such scheme shall provide for the transfer to the authority of any part of an undertaking except with the consent of the owners thereof.
(2) The scheme may provide for enabling the joint electricity authority to delegate, with or without restrictions, to committees of the authority any of the powers or duties of the authority and for the payment out of the revenues of the authority of travelling and subsistence expenses of members of the authority, and reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time.

CLAUSE B.—(Confirmation of Schemes.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners may make an Order giving effect to the schemes embodying decisions they arrive at as the result of such inquiry as aforesaid, and present the Order for confirmation by the Board of Trade, who may confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modification as they think fit.
(2) Any such Order shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is confirmed before each House of Parliament, but shall not come into operation unless and until it has been approved either with or without modification by a Resolution passed by each such House, and when so approved shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
(3) An Order made under this Section may be altered by a subsequent Order made, confirmed and and approved in like manner as the original Order.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(General Powers and Duties of District Electricity Boards and Joint Electricity Authorities.)

(1) It shall be the duty of every joint electricity authority, or district electricity board constituted under this Act, to provide or secure the provision of a cheap and abundant supply of electricity within their district, and for that purpose every such authority or board shall have such powers and duties as are conferred
or imposed upon them respectively by the scheme under which they are constituted or by this Act with respect to—


(a) the acquisition of generating stations;
(b) the acquisition or user of main transmission lines of any authorised undertakers;
(c) the supply of electricity within their district (including the construction of generating, stations, main transmission lines, and other works required for the purpose);
(d) the acquisition of the undertakings or parts of the undertakings of authorised distributors and power companies;

and such powers incidental thereto, as are hereinafter mentioned, and every such authority or board shall comply with any general directions given to them by the Electricity Commissioners is to the exercise and performance of their powers and duties.
(2) A joint electricity authority or a district electricity board may, with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, establish or join with any other such authority or board in establishing a scheme for the payment of superannuation allowances and gratuities to any of their officers and servants who become incapable of discharging their duties by reason of permanent infirmity of body and mind or old age upon their resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office, and the expenss incurred under any such scheme shall be treated as part of the expenses of the authority or board in carrying out their powers and duties under this Act.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or district electricity board."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "or board" ["every such authority or board."]— Agreed to.

Leave out the word "respectively" ["conferred or imposed upon them respectively"].—Agreed to.

Leave out the words
(a) the acquisition of generating stations;
(b) the acquisition or user of main transmission lines of any authorised undertakers.

—Agreed to.

In paragraph (d), leave out the word "distributors" ["undertakings of authorised distributors"], and insert instead thereof the word undertakers."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "and power companies."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "hereinafter ["as are hereinafter mentioned"], and insert instead thereof the words "in the scheme or in this Act."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or board "["or board shall comply"].—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words or a district electricity board."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "or board" [twice.]—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Acquisition of Generating Stations.)

(1) As from such date or dates as may be specified in the order constituting a district electricity board, all generating stations then existing within the district, other than railway generating stations, dock generating stations, and private generating stations, and such main transmission lines as may be specified in the order, other than main transmission lines belonging or leased to railway companies, shall by virtue of this Act vest in the district electricity board, subject to the payment by the board to the owners thereof of the standard price, but freed and discharged from all mortgages and other charges to which the same may be subject, and the proviso to Section seventy-eight of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1809, shall apply as if the generating stations or main transmission lines had been sold under Section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888:
Provided that in any case where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that any particular generating station is so small or so situated or equipped that it could not conveniently be used fur the purposes of the undertaking of the district electricity board, or for any other reason it is not desirable that such station should vest as hereinbefore provided, the Electricity Commissioners shall, after giving the owner of the generating station an opportunity of being heard, by order exempt the district electricity board, for such period as may be specified in the order, from the obligation of acquiring the generating station under this Sub-section.
(2) For the purposes of this Section the standard price—
(a) in the case of a generating station or main transmission line belonging to a local authority, shall at the option of the local authority be either—

(i) one or more annuities of such amount or amounts and continuing for such period or periods as an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to be required to indemnify the local authority against their liabilities for interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such sums borrowed for the purpose of providing the generating station or main transmission line as are at the date of transfer outstanding; or
(ii) a capitan sum calculated in like manner and on the like principles as the standard price in the case of a company:

Provided that if in a case where the first alternative is adopted it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that a substantial part of the cost of the generating station, or main transmission line, has been defrayed otherwise than by means of loans, or that for any other exceptional reason the calculation in the manner aforesaid of the annuity to be paid would work injustice, any such annuity may be increased by such amount as the Electricity Commissioners thick just
(b) in the case of a generating station or main transmission line belonging to a company
or person, shall be such sum as may be certified, after hearing the parties interested. by an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners to have been the cost of the lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant suitable to and used by the company or person for the purposes of their undertaking which are vested in the district electricity board, together with the amount- of the expenses incurred as and incidental to the construction of the generating station or main transmission line, and the acquisition of the site thereof, less depreciation, but with the addition of such sum as, in default of agreement, may be awarded by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade as compensation for any damage shown to be sustained by the company or person due to 'the severance of the generating station or main transmission lines, always having regard to the value of the obligation in Subsection (5) of this Section:
Provided that, if in any case it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that, owing to exceptional terms of purchase contained in the special Act or Order relating to a company, the standard price, as calculated as aforesaid, would work an injustice, the Electricity commissioners shall, on the application -of the company, refer the matter to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade for his determination whether any and, if so, what addition to the standard price, as calculated as aforesaid, should be made.
The expenditure which is to be taker, into account as being such expenses as aforesaid, and the amount of such depreciation as aforesaid, shall be determined in accordance with Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners, which shall be laid before Parliament:
Provided that if on the application of the company or person or of the district electricity board, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the expenditure so to be taken into account or the amount of depreciation so determined would work injustice, the expenditure se to be taken into account or the amount of depreciation, as the case may be, shall, in default of agreement, he determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade.
(3) Where the owners of any generating station or main transmission line which by virtue of this Section is vested in a district electricity board are entitled to any easement or right or the benefit of any contract, and it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that the transfer of the easement or right or benefit of the contract to the district electricity board is necessary for the proper enjoyment by the board of the generating station or main transmission line, the Electricity Commissioners may by order transfer to the board the easement, right, or benefit on payment by the board of such consideration as failing agreement may he determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade.
(4) A district electricity board may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, by agreement with the the owners thereof acquire army railway generating station, dock generating
station or private generating station or any main transmission line from any such station on such terms as may be agreed.
(5) Whenever a generating station is vested in a district electricity board under this Section they shall be under an obligation thenceforth to supply to the authority, company, or person from whom it is transferred, such quantity of electricity as may be required for the purposes of the undertaking and as regards the amount that could have been generated at the generating station by that authority, company, or person, at a price not greater than the cost at which it, could have been so generated, and in the event of any change in the type of current frequency or pressure to pay such expenses as the authority, company, or person may necessarily incur in consequence of such change, and if any question arises as to such amount or cost, or expenses, the question shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners, and iii determining such cost regard shall be had to capital charges (including interest on capital), cost of fuel and labour, and other costs of generation, and to any reduction of coats which might reasonably have been expected to accrue from any improvement of the generating station and plant therein which is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners to have been on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, under consideration by such authority, company, or person with a probability of early execution.
(6) Where a generating station or main transmission line has been vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under this Section the board may, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, agree with the former owner thereof that such owner shall work and maintain the same on behalf of the board for such period and on such terms as may be agreed between them.
(7) Where a generating station, which is vested in a district electricity board under this Section, is in course of construction, extension, or repair the rights and liabilities of the former owners thereof under any contract for such constructon, extension, or repair shall be transferred to the district electricity board.
(8) Where the generating station of any company is vested in a district electricity board under this Section and the company has created and is-sued mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock (whether irredeemable or not) charged upon such generating station, it shall be lawful for the company, with the consent of the holders of the mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock, to give notice to the holders of such mortgages, debentures, or debenture stock to repay the same in whole or in part out of the proceeds of the sale, notwithstanding anything contained in the mortgage or the debentures or debenture stock trust deed, but in the case of debentures and debenture stock at the rate at which the debentures or debenture stock could be paid off in the event of the winding up of the company:
Provided that the cost which an auditor appointed by the Electricity Commissioners certifies to have been necessarily incurred in obtaining the release of any mortgage or other charge shall be borne and paid by the district electricity board.
(9) Interest at, the rate of six per centum per. annum upon the standard price shall be paid by the district electricity board to the former owners of any such generating station or main
transmission line as from the date of vesting thereof in such board until payment, or where the standard price consists of an annuity upon any instalment, of the annuity from the date when the instalment becomes payable until payment.
(10) Where in any generating stallion vested in a district electricity board under this Section there is contained any plant which, in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners, forms an essential part of the distribution system of the former owners of the generating station, that plant shall, notwithstanding such vesting, remain the property of its former owners, who shall, so long as electricity is supplied for distribution from that station, at ad times have the right of access thereto.

Lords Amendments: Leave out Subsections (1), (2) and (3)—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "district electricity board,"and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "railway generating station, dock generating station or private."—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section 5–10 (inclusive). —Agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Right to Use for Generating Stations Land Acquired for that Purpose)

Where a district electricity board or any authorised undertakers are authorised by Order made after the passing of this Act to acquire or use any land for the purpose of a generating station, no person shall be entitled to restrain the use of the land for that purpose.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority." —Agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Restrictions on the Establishment of New Generating Stations)

Notwithstanding anything in any special Act or Order in force at the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any authority, company, or person to establish a new or extend an existing generating station or main transmission line without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, which consent shall not be refused or made subject to compliance with conditions to which the authority, company, or person object, unless a local inquiry has been held, but this restriction shall not apply to the establishment or extension of a private generating station provided that in the case of the establishment of a new private generating station the owner thereof shall comply with any Regulations made by the Electricity Commissioners as to the type of current, frequency, and pressure to be used; but such Regulations shall be so framed as not to interfere with the economical and efficient working of the business for which the supply is generated:
Provided that, in the case of a railway company using or proposing to use electricity for traction, and in the case of the owners of a dock undertaking regulated by Act of Parliament using or proposing to use electricity for the pur-
poses of their undertaking, consent shall not be refused unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that a district electricity board or authorised undertakers are or will be willing and in a position to give the railway company or owners a supply of electricity, adequate in quantity and regularity to meet the present and prospective demand of the railway company or owners, at a cost not greater than would have been incurred by the railway company or owners in supplying themelves:
Provided also that—

(a) where a group of persons carrying on or intending to carry on businesses in which large quantities of electricity are used for purposes other than for provision of mechanical power or light propose to establish a generating station for the purposes of such businesses;
(b) where a manufacturer having a business in which electricity can be generated from energy derived from a process of manufacture carried on in his premises proposes to establish a generating station for the purpose of supplying electricity not only for his own business but also to other manufacturers whose businesses are associated therewith;

the Electricity Commissioners may authorise the establishment by or on behalf of those consumers or that manufacturer of generating station, subject to the condition that any surplus electricity generated beyond that required by those consumers or, as the case may be, by the business of that manufacturer or the associated businesses shall (if required by the Electricity Commissioners) be supplied to the district electricity board, or ally authorised undertakers, at such prices as the Electricity Commissioners may think lit and proper, and may by Order authorise the exercise of such other powers (including the breaking up of roads, railways, and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of such supply, and the generating station shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as though it were a private generating station.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority" [twice].—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to Use Main Transmission Lines Belonging to Other Persons.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 10.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11—(Powers of District Electricity Boards in Respect of the Supply of Electricity.)

(1) A district electricity board shall have power to supply electricity within their district subject to the following limitations, that is to say, the board shall not supply electricity—

(a) in any area which for the time being forms part of the area of supply of any authorised distributors without the consent of those distributors, except to railway, canal, or inland navigation companies or authorities for the purposes of traction or haulage, or for lighting vehicles and vessels for the haulage or traction of which electricity is supplied; or
(b) in any part of the area of supply of a power company fir any purpose for
1133
Which the company are therein authorised to supply electricity without the consent of the company except to the previous owner of a generating station which has been acquired by the district electricity board:

Provided that where the authorised distributors or power company refuse or withhold their consent, the district electricity board may appeal to the Electricity Commissioners as to whether the consent is unreasonably refused or withheld, and the Board of Trade on the recommendation of the Electricity Commissioners may dispense with such consent if in their opinion it; is unreasonably refused or withheld, and the consent shall be deemed to be unreasonably refused or withheld if the authorised distributors or power company are not willing and in a position to give the requisite supply upon reasonable terms and within a reasonable time, and in considering what are reasonable terms and what is a reasonable time the Board of Trade shall amongst other things have regard to the terms upon which and the time within which the district electricity board and the authorised distributors or power company are willing and able to give the supply, and the terms upon which the authorised distributors or power company are themselves supplied by the district electricity board, including the period of time for which such terms are to be binding.
(2) This Act shall in relation to every district electricity board be deemed to be a special Act for the purposes of the Electric Lighting Acts, and every district electricity hoard shall be deemed to be undertakers within the meaning of those Acts, and for the purposes of this Section there shall be incorporated with this Act the provisions of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, subject to such exemptions and modifications as may be prescribed by the Order constituting the district electricity board:
Provided that Sections two and three of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888 (which relate to the purchase of undertakings by local authorities), shall not apply to the undertakings of district electricity boards.
(3) Subject to the limitations hereinbefore contained on the powers of a district electricity board to supply electricity, the Electricity Commissioners may by Order, after such inquiry as they think fit, impose on any district electricity board an obligation to supply electricity in such circumstances, within such areas, and on such terms and conditions as to price and otherwise as may be specified in the Order.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"[three times].—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board" ["the board shall not "], and insert instead thereof the word "authority"—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, a). after the word "supplied," insert the words "or for the purposes of charging or recharging electric vehicles not running on. rails."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, b) leave out the words "acquired by the district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words
transferred to the joint, electricity authority or for the purpose of charging or recharging electric vehicles not running on rails.

—Agreed to.

After the word "are" ["company are willing"], insert the word "respectively."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "the terms upon which" ["and the terms upon which"], and insert instead thereof the word "where"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district electricity board" ["district electricity board including"], and insert instead thereof the words
joint electricity authority, the terms upon which they are so supplied

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "district electricity board"[three times], and insert instead thereof the words" joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

Leave out the, words "district electricity boards," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authorities"—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "district electricity hoard," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Transfer of Undertakings to Boards.)

(1) Any local authority being authorised distributors may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, agree with the district electricity board of the district in which the area of supply of the authority or any part thereof is situated for the transfer to the board of the whole or any part of the undertaking of the authority within that district in consideration for the payment at the option of the local authority of either one or more annuities or a capital sum, calculated in like manner and on the like principles as the standard price in the case of a generating station is to be calculated:
Provided that where part of the area of supply of the authority is situated in a locality which is not included in an electricity district the powers of purchasing that part may, if the Electricity Commissioners consent, be exercised by a district electricity board within whose district any part of the area of supply is situated.
(2) Where under the Electric Lighting Acts, or under any Order made thereunder or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised distributors is vested in any local authority (including a county council), the right shall on the constitution of a district electricity
board for the district comprising the area of the local authority be transferred to and vest in the board, and any Order or Act conferring any such right shall be construed accordingly:
Provided that—

(a) if the area of the local authority is situate partly in the district of one district electricity boaro and partly in that of another the right shall be transferred to such one of those boards or divided between them as the Electricity Commissioners may determine, and where part of such area is situate in a locality which is not included in an electricity district the right of purchasing that part may, if the Electricity Commissioners consent, be transferred to a district electricity board within whose district any part of such area is situate; and
(b) where the distributors are themselves a local authority, the right so transferred to the district electricity board shall not be exercised, except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners.

(3) Where any such right as aforesaid becomes exercisable before tire date of the transfer of the right, to a district electricity board, the right shall not be exercised by the local authority without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, and such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Commissioners may think fit, and it shall be lawful for the local authority to comply with any conditions so imposed.
(4) Where by virtue of this Act any generating station or main transmission line belonging to a company or person being authorised distributors is vested in a district electricity board, that board shall, if so required by the company or person within two years from the date of vesting, purchase the whole of the remaining part of the undertaking of that company or person upon the terms of paying a sum equal to the amount certified by an auditor appointed by the Board of Trade to be the amount of capital expenditure on the whole undertaking properly standing in the books of the company or person prior to the date of vesting, together with any additional capital expenditure since that date, less any sum paid or payable in respect of any generating station or main transmission line so vested as aforesaid.
(5) A district electricity board with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners may at any time acquire the whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised distributors not being a local authority, by agreement, and it shall be lawful for any such distributors to sell their undertaking or any part thereof to a district electricity board.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert thereof the words "joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

After the word "the "["the authority of"] insert the word "local"—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board"["board of"], and insert instead thereof the words
"joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

After the word "the"["the authority within"] insert toe word "local," and leave out the words
in consideration for the payment at the option of the local authority of either one or more annuities or a capital sum, calculated in like manner and on the like principles as the standard price in the case of a generating station is to be calculated.

—Agreed to.

After the word "the"["the authority"] insert the word "local."— Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district electricity board,' and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "shall on constitution of," and insert instead thereof the words "may by any Order under this Act constituting."

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. MARRIOTT: It might be desirable that the House should have a word of explanation from the Home Secretary before it gives its assent to this Amendment, which it seems to me may very seriously affect the benefits which are proposed to be given under this part of the Bill. The Clause provides that any right to purchase vested in any local authority, including a county council, shall be transferred to the joint electricity authority on its constitution. This, which I think was a manuscript Amendment, makes it permissive whether such rights are or are not to be transferred. If the Commissioners decided not to transfer these powers, it would be of hardly any use for them to constitute a joint electricity authority at all, for the authority's life may be limited so as to make the conditions impossible. On the other hand, if the right of purchase goes to the joint authority, thereby giving to it an unlimited life, it may be able to raise its capital on terms which will enable it to make good. The House, therefore, should not assent to this Amendment without a word of explanation from the Home Secretary.

Mr. NEAL: I understand the hon. Member's point to be this: Under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888, Section 2, certain rights of purchase at given times are
Vested in local authorities. As the Bill left this House for another place it read thus:
Where under the Electric Lighting Acts or under any Order made thereunder or under any special or local Act, any right to purchase the -whole or any part of the undertaking of any authorised distributors is vested in any local authority (including a county council) the right shall on the constitution of a joint electricity board for the district comprising the area of the local authority be transferred to and vest in the board, and any Order or Act conferring any such right shall be construed accordingly.
As it comes back to us that is varied in the interest of the undertakers, because it is now provided that the scheme under which the joint electricity authority is formed shall itself deal with that matter, and says the Commissioners may vest in the joint electricity authority the right of purchase, "but subject to an Order providing for adequate representation on the joint electricity authority of the local authority from whom the right is transferred." I will give a concrete case, by way of illustration. In 1931 the London County Council will have their right of purchasing certain undertakings. If the scheme constituting a joint electricity authority for the London area vests that in the joint electricity authority they must be given adequate representation to the London County Council. A consequential Amendment to be moved by the Home Secretary will deal as to how that adequate representation is to be secured.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.
Amendment made: Leave out the word "vest" ["and vest in the board"], and insert instead thereof the word "vested." —[Mr. Shortt.]
Lords Amendment: After the word "authority" ["local authority be"], insert the words
subject to the Order providing for adequate representation on the joint electricity authority of the local authority from whom the right is transferred.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HOGGE: What is meant by "adequate representation"? This Clause gives a joint electricity authority power to purchase a local undertaking, and on that joint electricity authority the local under-
taking which previously controlled its own concern will only have a certain voice. It is "subject to the Order." is that an Order drawn under the Bill on which there will be proportional representation of those concerned with the new joint electricity authority according to the size of the undertaking?

Mr. MARRIOTT: This Amendment seems to go a great deal further than the Amendment on the Paper in another place, which was originally intended only to apply to the London County Council. The Amendment on the Paper in another place gave the London County Council representation on the London Joint Electricity authority. The present Amendment, which was only inserted after conversations in another place, goes a great deal further than that. It requires that adequate representation shall be given on any joint authority of every local authority that had powers of purchase under the previous Acts. That makes the new authority an impracticable proposition. For example, there may he an authority proposed. For district running into an area embracing twenty local authorities where electricity is supplied by companies only. As I read the Amendment it would prevent the purchasing power being transferred at all unless each of those purchasing authorities have a seat on the joint electricity authority. That seems to me a. very awkward proposition.

Mr. NEAL: The Amendment as it comes to us from another place provides for adequate representation on tile joint electricity authority. What adequate representation may mean must vary according to the circumstances in each case. There is nothing in the Bill as we have it before us which provides any method by which the word "adequate" may be determined. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Rogge) asks how the adequacy of representation is to be arrived at. The Government will move a further Amendment to line 32, to add necessary words, namely:
And any question as the adequacy of such representation shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners.
The Order is one that is made by the Electricity Commissioners, and it has to come to both Houses of Parliament for affirmative assent by Resolution before it becomes operative. It is proposed that the Electricity Commissioners should have the framing of the Order and of saying what
is adequate representation, but the final word upon it is in this House and in another place.

Mr. MARRIOTT: That does not deal with my point. My point was that there may be an authority proposed for a district which runs into the area of a very large number of local authorities, say, twelve, fifteen, or twenty. Before you get your authority established you have to give adequate representation to each of those local authorities. Would not that be an extremely cumbrous proceeding?

Mr. NEAL: I do not think so. The only local authorities which are entitled to representation are the local authorities who have the right of purchase, and an authority which has that right is to have adequate representation. There is no limitation to the size and number of the joint electricity authorities, and when the Commissioners in the first instance come to consider what is adequate representation they will no doubt bear in mind the points raised by my hon. Friend. The final word is with Parliament, and I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend would wish anything better than that.

Mr. HOGGE: What does my hon. Friend mean when he says that the final word is with Parliament? I understood him to say that the Electricity Commissioners would determine what was adequate representation, and that that would be finally approved by this House and another place. In what form will every scheme of representation on the joint electricity authority be brought here? Will it be laid as a Minute on the Table, subject to the usual petition inside thirty days?

Mr. NEAL: The Order by the Electricity Commissioners for constituting the joint electricity authority is a special Order within the terms of this Bill, and all such Orders require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament before they become law.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "board" ["vested in the board"], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.
Amendments made: Leave out the words "any Order or Act conferring any such,"
and insert instead thereof the words "on any right being so transferred, the Order or Act conferring the."—[ Mr. shortt.]
After the word "accordingly"["continued accordingly"], insert the words "and any question as to the adequacy of such representation shall be determined by the Electricity Commissioners."— [Mr. Shortt]
Lords Amendments: in paragraph (a), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words" joint electricity authority."— Agreed to.
Leave out the word "transferred," and insert instead thereof the word "transferable"—Agreed to.
In Sub-section (2, a) leave out the word "boards "["one of those boards or divided"], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authorities."—Agreed to.
Leave out the word divided," and insert instead thereof the word "divisible."—Agreed to.
Leave out the word "transferred "["consent, be transferred to a district"], and insert instead thereof the word "transferable."—Agreed to.
Leave out the words district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.
Amendments made: Leave out paragraph (b)—[Mr. Shortt.]
In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "transfer of the right to," and insert instead thereof the words '' constitution of."—[Mr. Shortt.]
Lords Amendments: Leave out Sub-seetion (4).—Agreed to.
In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "district electricity board,"and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"[twice].—Agreed to.
Leave out the word "distributors,"and insert instead thereof the word "undertakers "[twice].—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Special Provisions as to Power Companies.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners may on the application of a district electricity board by Order exclude from the area of supply of any power company any part of that area which at the time of the application is not being supplied by the company, and which it appears to the Electricity Commissioners could be better served by the district electricity board, and in consideration there for may, if they think fit,
confer on the power company power to supply electricity for all purposes in other parts of their area of supply which do not at the time form part of the area of supply of any authorised distributors:
Provided that if the power company, or any county council, local authority, or authorised undertakers which appear to the Electricity Commissioners to be interested, object to the. proposed Order, effect shall nut be given to the proposals except by special Order.
(2) Where a generating station of a power company, is, by virtue of this Act, vested in a district electricity board the date fixed for the vesting thereof shall not be earlier than one year after the Order constituting the board comes into operation, and if within that year the power company so require the district electricity board shall purchase the whole of the undertaking of the power company upon the terms et paying to the power company the fair market value of undertaking as a going concern immediately before the date of the constitution of the district electricity board, that value to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1889, together with, if the arbitrator thinks fit, such sum as the arbitrator determines to be the costs properly incurred by the company in or as incidental to the arbitration and the transfer of the undertaking, and no part of the undertaking of the power company shall vest in the hoard until the completion of the purchase.
For the purposes of this Sub-section the undertaking of a power company shall be deemed to include the undertaking of any subsidiary company which is under the control of the power company, whether by reason of the majority of the voting power being vested in the power company or their nominees or shareholders, or otherwise, and is operated in connection with the undertaking of the power company.
If the area of supply of the power company (including the area of supply of any such subsidiary company) is situate partly in one electricity district and partly in another, each district electricity board shall purchase the part of the undertaking within its district at the same time, and if the price is referred for determination by arbitration shall be determined at the same arbitration, and the amount to be paid to the company shall be apportioned between the district electricity boards in such manner as the Electricity Commissioners may think just.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave oat the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"[twice].—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (2).—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to Confer Powers on Boards when Authorised Undertakers Unable or Unwilling to gire Facilities)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 14.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Subsidiary Powers of District Electricity Boards.)

(1) The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may by
Order authorise any district electricity board or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland nagivation or other source, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the district electricity board or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, but the Board shall not in any case make such an Order until notice of their intention to make the Order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the Board may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the Board to be affected of stating any objections be may have thereto, and such Order may provide for the recovery of penalties for infringement of the Order:
Provided that—
(a) where the source from which the water is to be abstracted is a canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour regulated by Act of Parliament, or where any existing rights of riparian owners will be affected by the abstraction of the water, the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order, and shall provide that the water not consumed shall, subject to any agreement to the contrary, be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted;
(2) A district electricity board and any local authority, company, or person may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, enter into arrangements for the utilisation, for the purposes of the Board, of water-power, waste heat, or other form of energy which the local authority, company, or person may be able to dispose of, or for the supply by the board of any form of energy other than electricity, and where such an arrangement has been made the district electricity board may be authorised by Order to exercise such powers (including the power to break up roads, railways and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of conveying such energy:
Provided always that such district electricity board, local authority, company, or person shad in no case have the power to enter into arrangements for the supply by the hoard of any form of energy, other than electricity, in any area or district within which any undertakers may be authorised by Parliament to supply such form of energy unless and until such undertakers consent thereto and then only upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon with such undertakers.
(3) A district electricity board may with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners dispose of any generating station, land or other works or property which appears to them to be no longer required for the purposes of their undertaking, subject as respects any land which is subject to any right of pre-emption to that right:
Provided that where the generating station contains plant which is the property of the former owners of the generating station, the Electricity Commissioners shall, as a condition of granting their consent to the disposal of the generating station, require such provision to he made by the district electricity board as the Commissioners consider necessary to safeguard the rights of such former owners.
(4) The purposes for which a district electricity board may be authorised to acquire compulsorily or use land under Section one of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall include the development of water-power for the generation of electricity.
(5) A district electricity board may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, erect, maintain, alter, improve, and renew by product plant with all necessary machinery and apparatus, and do all such acts as may he proper for working up and converting the residual products arising directly or indirectly from the generation of electricity:
Provided that where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that the establishment of any such by product plant could properly be undertaken by any existing company, authority, or person, a district electricity board shall not establish such plant without first giving to such company, authority, or person an opportunity of so doing.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-sction (1), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"[twice].—Agreed to.

After the word "recovery, "insert the words "in a summary manner"—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1, a), leave out the word "dock."—Agreed to.

After Sub-section (1, e) insert the words
(d) In any Order authorising the abstraction of water from the Manchester Ship Canal there shall be inserted such provisions as the Board of Trade may consider adequate for preventing interference with the navigation of the canal.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board" ["purposes of the board, of water-power"], and insert instead thereof the words" joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board "["supply by the board "7, and insert instead thereof the words joint electricity authority"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district electricity board, and insert instead thereof the words" joint electricity authority "[twice].—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board'' ["by the board "], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."— Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (3).—Agreed to.

In Sub-sections (4) and (5), leave out the words "district electricity board,"and insert instead thereof the words"joint electricity authority."(Three times.)—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Mode of Exercise of Powers of District Boards)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 16.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Compensation for Deprivation of Employment.)

If after the eighth of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and within five years from the date when under this Act a transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking (including the transfer of a generating station and main transmission lines) has been effected, or a scheme for the improvement of the supply of electricity in any district has come into operation, or an agreement or arrangement between various authorised undertakers for the rendering of mutual assistance to one another has been entered into, any officer or servant who has before the said eighth day of May been regularly employed in or about the undertaking or any authorised undertaking proves to the satisfaction of a referee or a board of referees appointed by the Minister of Labour that in consequence thereof he—
(iii) has been placed in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (in-chiding tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund, or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice),
and the body to which the undertaking or part thereof was transferred, or, as the case may be, the authorised undertakers who are affected by the scheme or are parties to the agreement or arrangement, do not show to the satisfaction of the referee or board of referees that equivalent employment on the like conditions as those oh. taming with respect to him before the said eighth day of May v as available, there shall be paid to him by that body or those undertakers, or such of them as the referee or board of referees may think just, such compensation as the referee or board of referees may award, including any expenses which the officer or servant necessarily incurs in removing to another locality:
Provided that such compensation shall (unless otherwise agreed) in the case of an officer employed on an annual salary be based on but not exceed the amount which would have been payable to a person on abolition of office under the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service in force at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, but in computing the period of service of any officer, service under any authorised undertakers shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertaker in whose employment he is at the time that he suffers such loss or diminution as is mentioned in this Section; and where any such officer or servant was temporarily absent from his employment whilst serving in or with His Majesty's Forces or the forces of the Allied or Associated Powers during the present war, such service shall be reckoned as service under the
authorised undertakers in whose employment he was immediately before and after such temporary absence.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words "including the transfer of a generating station and Main transmission lines"— Agreed to.

Leave out the word "thereof"["in consequence thereof he "], and insert instead thereof the words "of this Act"—Agreed to.

In paragraph (iii.), after the word "sick" ["sick fund"], and insert the words "or other"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "before the said eighth day of May" ["said eighth day of May "], and insert instead thereof the words "at the date when the scheme comes into operation or the agreement or arrangement is, entered into"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "unless otherwise agreed"["such compensation shall (unless otherwise agreed)"]—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After the word "powers "I" the forces of the allied or associated powers "], insert the words "or in any other employment of national importance."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Submission of Plans, etc., with Respect to Capital Expenditure.)

A district electricity board before incurring any capital expenditure above such amount as the Electricity Commissioners may prescribe shall submit for approval to the Electricity Commissioners such details, plars, and estimates with respect to the proposed expenditure as the Electricity Commissioners may require.

6.0 P.M.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Board of Trade to Construct Interim Works.)

19.—(1) It, shall be lawful for the Board of 'Trade, after consultation with the Electricity Commissioners, at any time after an electricity district has been provisionally determined and before the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for the district, and for two years after the establishment of any such board or authority, with the consent of such board or authority, to construct any generating station, main transmission line, or other works, and exercise any other powers which a district electricity hoard or joint electricity authority can or can be authorised to exercise under this Act, but nothing in this provision shall be construed as vesting in the Board of Trade any generating station or main transmission line which under this Act becomes vested in a district electricity board;
Provided that, where the Board of Trade propose to construct a generating station before the
establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, they shall consult with the county councils, local authorities, and authorised undertakers any part, of whose county, district, or area of supply is within the electricity district, as to the site of the proposed station.
(3) At the expiration of two years after the' establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, or at any earlier time which may be agreed on between the Board of Trade and the district electricity board or joint electricity authority, any generating station, main transmission lines and: other works, and any land acquired for the purpose thereof by the Board of Trade under this. Section which are situate within the electricity district, shall vest 'n that board or authority, subject to the payment by the district electricity board or joint electricity authority to the Board of Trade of such sum as may be certified by the Treasury to be sufficient to repay the advances made by them to the Board of Trade including the cost of redeeming any of the securities issued under the preceding Sub-section) in respect of the construction of and provision of working capital for such works, and the acquisition of such lands, and any interest thereon which may be outstanding after deducting the amount applied or applicable towards the repayment of the sums issued to the Board of Trade for de, fraying that cost; and the payment of such sum as aforesaid shall be a purpose for which the district electricity board may borrow under this Act:
Provided that the date of vesting under this Sub-section shall not be later than the date fixed for tine vesting in the district electricity board or joint electricity authority of any generating station of any authorised undertakers within the district.
(4) The prices fixed by the Board of Trade for electricity supplied by them from generating stations established under this Section, shall be such that their receipts therefrom will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such advances as aforesaid) with such margin as the Board may think fit:
Provided that in fixing such prices the Board of Trade shall have regard to the existing. scale of charges of the authorised distributors in the district, and that the provisions of Sub-section
(5) of the Section of this Act, whereof the marginal note is "Acquisition of generating stations," shall extend and apply to the Board of Trade in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a district electricity board.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words" district electricity board or "[three times]—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "board or "["such board or authority "[twice]—Agreed to.

Leave out the Words
but nothing in this provision shall be construed as vesting in the Board of Trade any generating station or main transmission line which under this Act becomes vested in a district electricity board.

—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "they "["they shall consult with the county Councils"], and insert instead thereof the words "the Electricity Commissioners."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (1), after the word district "["within the electricity district"], insert the words "as provisionally determined"—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "district electricity board or"[three times]—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "board or "["vest in that board or "]—Agreed to.

Leave out the words
and the payment of such sum as aforesaid shall be a purpose for which the district electricity board may borrow under this Act:
Provided that the date of vesting under this Sub-section shall not be later than the date fixed for the vesting in the district electricity board or joint electricity authority of any generating station of any authorised undertakers within the district.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (4), leave out the words
Provided that in fixing such prices the Board of Trade shall have regard to the existing scale of chares of the authorised distributors in the district, and that the provisions of Subsection (5) of the Section of this Act, whereof the marginal note is Acquisition of generating stations. shall extend and apply to the Board of Trade in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a district electricity board.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 20—(Power Of Authorised Undertakers to Render Mutual Assistance to One Another.)

(1) During the period between the passing of this Act and the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, any two or more of the authorised undertakers within the locality may, with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and if so required by the Electricity Commissioners shall, enter into and carry into effect arrangements for mutual assistance of the one by the other, with regard to all or any of the following purposes:

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "district electricity board or."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Wayleaves.)

(1) A district electricity board or any authorised undertakers may place any electric line below ground across any land, and above ground across any land other than land covered by buildings or used as a garden or pleasure ground in cases where the placing of such lines above ground is otherwise lawful, and where any line has been so placed across any land the board or undertakers may enter on the land for the purpose of repairing or altering the line:
Provided that before placing any such line across any land the board or undertakers shall
serve an the owner and occupier of the land notice of their intention, together with a description of the nature and position of the lines proposed to be so placed; and if, within twenty-one days after the service of the notice, the owner and occupier fail to- give their consent or attach to their consent any terms or conditions or stipulations to which the board or the undertakers object, it shall not be lawful to place the line across that land without the consent of the Board of Trade; and the Board of Trade may, if after giving all parties concerned an opportunity of being heard they think it just, give their consent either unconditionally or subject to such terms, conditions, and stipulations as they think just; and in deciding whether to give or withhold their consent; or to impose any terms, conditions, or stipulations (including the e carrying of any portion of the line underground) Board shall, among other considerations, have regard to the effect, if any on the amenities or value of the land of the placing of the line in the manner proposed.
(2) The power of placing lines across land conferred by this Sect on shall include the power of placing a line across or along any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour, subject to the rights of the owners thereof and to the following conditions:—
(b) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed across any canal or inland navigation from side to side thereof, whether by being carried above or below ground, Sections fifteen, nineteen, and seventy-seven of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall, without prejudice to any protection given to the owners of the canal by the Electric Lighting Acts and this Act., apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special order. as defined in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899. and as if the expression canal therein included inland navigation:
(c) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed over or upon or under any line of railway along its course. the provisions contained in the proviso to Sub-section (1) of this Section shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following conditions shall apply:—

(i) Failing agreement between the district electricity board or authorised undertakers proposing to place such electric lines and the railway company, the district electricity board or authorised undertakers may apply to the Board of Trade, who may decide either that the lines shall not be so placed or may refer the question to the Railway and Canal Commission. and that Commission may, after an inquiry, make an order for the placing of the electric lines, subject to such pecuniary terms as the Commission think just, or refusing to allow such lines to be placed, and any such inquiry may be held by any one or more of the members of the Commission or by an officer appointed by the Commission for the purpose, and Parts and IV. of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888
1149
(except the Sections relating to appeals), shall apply as far as applicable to any such inquiry, and any officer appointed to hold the inquiry shall have power to administer an oath;
(ii) The district electricity board or authorised undertaker shall, upon receiving notice in writing from the railway company, remove or alter within a reasonable time, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the railway company, any such electric lines which shall interfere with the existing or any proposed works of the railway company or the traffic thereon: Provided that if within twenty one days after receipt of such notice the district electricity board or authorised undertakers object to the removal or alteration required by such notice, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen, which shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission;
(iii) Save as herein provided, Sections fifteen, sixteen, nineteen, twenty, and seventy-seven, of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall, without prejudice to any protection given to the railway company by the Electric Lighting Acts and by this Act, apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special Order as defined in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.

(d) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed over or upon or under any canal or inland navigation along its course, the following conditions shall apply:

(i) The provisions of paragraphs (c) (i) and (c) (ii) of this Sub-section shall apply as in the case of railways:
(ii) Save its herein provided, Sections fifteen, sixteen, nineteen, and seventy-seven of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall, without prejudice to any protection given to the canal owners by the Electric Lighting Acts and this Act, apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special Order as defined in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, and as if the expression "canal" therein included an inland navigation.

(f) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed across any lands or works forming part of any dock or harbor undertaking regulated by Act of Parliament, whether by being carried above ground or below ground, Sections fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, nineteen, and seventy-seven of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special Order as defined in the said Act, and as if in the said Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventy-seven, the expression "street" included any such lands or works, and "the persons liable to repair a street" included the authority owning, or managing the undertaking, and in the said Section nineteen the expres-
sions "canal" and "owners of a canal" included a dock or harbour and the authority owning or managing the same.
(3) For the purposes of this Section any company or body or person entitled by virtue of any Act of Parliament to receive tolls or dues in, respect of the navigation on or use of any canal, inland navigation dock or harbour shall be deemed to be occupiers of such canal or inland navigation dock or harbour.
(5) Nothing in this Section shall prejudice or affect the rights of the Postmaster-General in relation to railways and canals under the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1916, or any agreement or award made thereunder, or shall operate in such a manner as to interfere with or involve additional expense in the exercise of any such rights.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority"— Agreed to.

Leave out the word "board"[three times], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2, b), leave out the words "and as if the expression canal therein included inland navigation."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2,c, i.), leave out the words "district electricity board"[twice], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2,c, ii.), leave out the words "district electricity board"[twice], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2,d), after the word "course," insert the words
the provisions contained in the proviso to Subsection (1) of this Section shall not apply, arid in lieu thereof.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2,d, i.), after the word "railways," insert the words
and for that purpose the expression railway company ' shall mean the owners of the canal or inland navigation.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2, d, ii.), leave out the words "and as if the expression canal therein included an inland navigation,"—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2, f) after the word "shall," insert the words
without prejudice to any protection given to the authority owning or managing the undertaking by the Electric Lighting Acts and this Act.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2,b), leave out the words
said Act, and as if in the said Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventy-seven, the expression 'street' included any such lands or works, and the persons liable to repair a street' included the authority, owning, or managing the undertaking, and in the said Section nineteen the expressions canal and owners of a canal included a dock or harbour and the authority owning or managing the same.
and insert instead thereof the words "Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899."— Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), after the words last inserted, insert the words
The Sections of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, by this Sub-section applied to canals, inland navigations, docks and harbours, and lands or works forming part thereof shall apply thereto as if references those Sections to streets and persons liable to repair streets and canals and canal companies included respectively canals, inland navigations, docks and harbours, and lands and works forming part of a clock or harbour, and the authority owning or managing the same.

—Agreed to.

In Sub-suction (3), leave out the word "occupiers," and insert instead thereof the word "owners."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "and canals," and insert instead thereof the words "canals, docks and harbours."—Agreed to.

At end of Sub-section (5), insert the words
 a notice under this Section may be served on the owner or occupier of any land by delivering it to him or by leaving it or forwarding it by post addressed to him at his usual or last known place of abode, and may be addressed by the description of the owner or occupier of the lands (naming them) without further name or description.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Supply of Apparatus.)

(1) A district electricity board and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may provide, let for hire, and in respect thereof may connect, repair, maintain and remove (but shall not-, unless expressly authorised to do so by the special Act, manufacture or sell) electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances for lighting, heating and motive power and for all other purposes for which electricity can, or may be used, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "district electricity board," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

After the word "Act "["by the special Act, manufacture"], insert the words "an Order."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 25—(Limitation of Prices and Pro fits.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 25—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 28—(Substitution of Special far Provisional Orders.)

Anything which under the Electric Lighting Acts may be effected by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament may be affected by a special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Board of Trade under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or by an Order establishing a district electricity board or a joint electricity authority under this Act, and references in those Acts and the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, to Provisional Orders shall be construed as including references to such special Orders and Orders as aforesaid, except that the paragraphs numbered (1) to (4) of Section four of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall not apply to special Orders, and any Provisional Order made under the Electric Lighting Acts and confirmed by Parliament may be amended or revoked by any such special Order or Order as aforesaid:
Provided that a special Order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and shall not come into force unless and until approved by a Resolution passed by each such House.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words, "a district electricity board or." —Agreed to.

Leave out the words "special orders"["to special orders, and any provisional"], and insert instead thereof the words, "special orders and orders as aforesaid." —Agreed to.

After the word approved"["approved by a resolution"], insert the words, "either with or without modifications."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Power to Require Account, Statistics, and Returns.)

It shall be the duty of district electricity hoards and authorised undertakers to furnish to the Electricity Commissioners at such times and in such form and manner as the Commissioners may direct such accounts statistics, and returns as they may require for the purposes of their powers and duties under this Act.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity boards," and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authorities."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 30—(Revenue and Expenditure of District Electricity Boards.)

(1) Every district electricity board shall establish a fund to which all receipts by the board shall be carried, and out of which all payments by the board shall be made.
(2) Every district electricity board shall annually, at such time as the Electricity Commissioners may fix, submit to the Electricity Commissioners such a statement of income and expenditure on revenue account as the Electricity Commissioners may require.
(3) The accounts of every district electricity board and their officers shall be audited by auditors appointed by the Electricity Commissioners, and the audit shall be conducted in accordance with such Regulations as may be prescribed by the Electricity Commissioners, and the Regulations may apply with the necessary modifications the provisions relating to the accounts and audit of accounts of county councils and their officers.
(4) Every district electricity board shall annually at such date and in such form as the Electricity Commissioners may prescribe make to the Electricity Commissioners a report of their proceedings during the preceding year.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it be in order to omit a Sub-section that has been amended in another place?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member could not take precedence over the Government in a Motion of this kind.
Lords Amendments: Leave out the words "District Electricity Board" [four times], and insert instead thereof the words, "joint electricity authority." —Agreed to.
In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "board" ["receipts by the board"], and insert instead thereof the word "authority."—Agreed to.
Leave out the word "board" ["payments by the board"], and insert instead thereof the word "authority"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Powers to Borrow.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 31. —Agreed to.

CLAUSE 32—(Power to Authorise Issue of Stocks.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 32.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 33—Powers of Undertakers to Give Financial Assistance.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 33—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Power of Electricity Commissioners to Lend Money to District Electricity Boards and Authorised Undertakers.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 34.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 35—(Expenses of Electricity Commissioners.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners shall at the beginning of each financial year prepare an Estimate of their receipts and expenditure, other than on account of loans under the last preceding Section, during the year, and submit it for approval by the Board of Trade.
(2) The Electricity Commissioners shall apportion the amount by which the estimated expenses so approved exceed the estimated receipts so approved amongst the several district electricity boards, joint electricity authorities, and authorised undertakers within the United Kingdom in proportion to the number of units of electricity generated by or on be, half of those boards, authorities, and undertakers respectively in the preceding year; and every such district board, authority, or undertaker shall, on demand from the Electricity Commissioners pay to them as a contribution towards their expenses the sum so apportioned: Provided that during the first two years after the passing of this Act the amount of such excess shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, but such payments shall be treated as advances and shall be repaid, with interest at such rate as the Treasury may fix, by the Commissioners by equal annual instalments in the next three succeedinc years.
(3) All sums received by the Commissioners shall be paid into a separate fund, and out of that fund the salaries, remuneration, pensions and gratuities of the Commissioners, their secretary, officers, and servants and all expenses incurred by the Commissioners shall be paid, and the Treasury may determine that that fund shall be a public fund within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1892:
Provided that this Section shall not apply to sums which by this Act are payable into or out of the electricity loans fund.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "other than on account of loans under the last preceding Section."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words. "district electricity boards."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "boards"["boards, authorities, and undertakers."].—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district boa-rd "["every such district board"]—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words
Provided that this Section shall not apply to sums which by this Act are payable into or out of the electricity loans fund.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 36—(Subscriptions to Associations.)

Subject to the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, district electricity boards or any authorised undertakers may, out of the revenue of their undertakings, pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annual or otherwise, to the funds of any association formed for the purpose of consultation as to their common interests and the discussion of matters relating to the supply of electricity, and to the funds of any recognised association conducted on a non-profit earning basis for developing the use of electricity, and may purchase reports of the proceedings of any conferences or meetings, and may pay the reasonable expenses of attendance of any members or officers of the board or undertaker at conferences or meetings of the said association or any of them.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the word "board"["officers of the board"] and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district electricity boards "and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authorities."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 37—(Provision as to Stamp Duty.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 37. —Agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Application to Electricity of 38 and 39 Vict. c. 86 s. 4.)

Section four of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, (which relates to breaches of contract by persons employed in the supply of gas or water), shall extend to persons employed by a district electricity board or by any authorised undertakers in like manner as it applies to persons mentioned in that Section, with the substitution of references to electricity for the references to gas or water.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board."and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 39—(Provisions as to Agreements and Arrangements under this Act.)

(1) Where under this Act a district electricity board are authorised to enter into an agreement or arrangement with, or to act through authorised undertakers or any other authority, company, or person for any purpose, it shall be lawful for those undertakers, authority, company, or person to enter into and carry into effect such an agreement or arrangement, or, as the case may be, to act on behalf of the board.
(2) Where a local authority, as authorised undertakers enter into an agreement or arrangement with a district electricity board or any other authorised undertakers in pursuance of this Act, any expenses incurred by the local authority in carrying the agreement or arrangement into effect shall be deemed to be expenses incurred by them under or in pursuance of the Electric Lighting Acts and the provisions of Section seven and Section eight of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall apply accordingly
1156
and any moneys received by any such local authority under any such agreement or arrangement shall be deemed to be moneys received by the local authority in respect of their undertaking.
(3) Where by this Act order may be made or authority may be given conferring on a district electricity board or authorised undertakers or other persons such powers as may be necessary for carrying into effect, an agreement or arrangement entered into by them under this Act or for doing anything which under this Act they are authorised to do, and amongst the powers to be conferred by the order are included powers of breaking up streets, railways and tramways other than such as can he broken up under any Order or special Act relating to the district electricity board or undertakers, the Order shall be a special Order, and shall apply or incorporate the provisions of the Electric Lighting Acts and the Electric Lighting (Clauses; Act, 1899, relating to breaking up of streets, railways and tramways.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "district electricity board"[twice] and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "or to act through authorised undertakers or any other authority, company, or person for any," and insert instead thereof the words "any authorised under takers or any other authority, company, or person for any."—Agreed to.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "or as the case may be to act on behalf of the board."— [Mr. Neal.]

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or authority may be given."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "district electricity board"[twice], and insert instead thereof the words "joint electricity authority."—Agreed to.

After the word "order"["the order shall be"], insert the words "unless it is an order made under Section seven of this Act."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 40.—Winding-up of Companies.

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 40.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Power to Make Rides.)

(2) Any Rules made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and shall have the same effect as if enacted in this Act, and shall be deemed to be statutory Rules to which the Rules Publication Act, 1893, applies.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "and shall be deemed to be statutory rules to which the Rules Publication Act, 1893, applies."— Agreed to

CLAUSE 44.—(Definitions.)

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "railway generating station "means a station for generating electricity for use solely or mainly by a railway company for traction purposes:
The expression "dock generating station means a station for generating electricity for use solely or mainly by the owners of a dock undertaking for the purposes of the undertaking:
The expression "private generating station" means a generating station for the generation of electricity for use solely or mainly on the owner's or joint owners' premises or for the purposes of his or their undertaking or undertakings or, where the owner is a subsidiary company, for the purposes of the undertaking of the principal company, in any case where the undertaking of the owner or the principal company is not an undertaking belonging to authorised undertakers or to a railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour or other undertaking providing facilities for or incidental to the transport of goods or passengers:
The expression "main transmission lines" means all extra high-pressure cables and overhead lines (not being an essential part of an authorised undertaker's distribution system or the distribution system of a railway company) transmitting electricity from a generating station to any other generating station, or to a sub-station, together with any step-up and step-down transformers and switchgear necessary to, and used for, the control of such cables or overhead lines, and the buildings or such part thereof as may be required to accommodate such transformers and switch-gear:

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words "traction purposes," and insert instead thereof the words "the purposes of their undertaking."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words
The expression dock generating station means a station for generating electricity for use solely or mainly by the owners of a dock undertaking for the purposes of the undertaking.

—Agreed to.

After the word "company" ["where the owner is a subsidiary company"], insert the words" solely or mainly on the premises or."—Agreed to.

After the word "company" ["distribution system of a railway company"], insert the words" or the owners of a dock undertaking."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Provision as to Subsidiary Company Limited to Supply to Principal Companies.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 45.—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:

(1) "Arbitrator" means "arbiter"; "easement" means "servitude"; "receiver" means "judicial factor"; and "restrain" includes interdict:
(2) In appointing advisory committees under Section four of this Act, the Electricity Commissioners shall appoint a committee for Scotland:
(3) In the application of the Section of this Act relating to power of undertakers, etc., to give financial assistance—

(a)References to a county district and to a metropolitan borough shall not apply;
(b) References to a borough or a municipal borough shall be construed as references to any burgh to which the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, applies;
(c) For the references to the Minister of Health, to the Local Government Act, 1888, and to the Public Health Act, 1875, there shall be substituted references respectively to the Secretary for Scotland, to the Local Government (Scotland) Act; 1889, and to the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897;
(d) Any expenses incurred by a county council under the said Section shall be. defrayed out of the general purposes rate: provided that., notwithstanding any thing contained in the Local Government (Scottland) Act, 1889, the ratepayers of 'a police burgh shall not be assessed by a county council for any such expenses; and any expenses so incurred by a town council shall be defrayed out of the public health general assessment: provided that such expenses shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of that assessment.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1); leave out the words "arbitrator" means "arbiter"; "easement" means "servitude"; "receiver" means "judicial factor"—Agreed to.

Leave out Sub-section (3).—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Application to Ireland.)

47. This Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications:

(a) A reference to the Local Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for any reference to the Minister of Health:
(b) A reference to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall be substituted for any reference to the Local Government Act, 1888, and a reference to the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1918, shall be substituted for any reference to the Public Health Act, 1875.

Lords Amendment: Leave out paragraph (b).—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Transfer of Powers of Board of Trade to Minister of Transport.)

All the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under this Act or the Electric Lighting Acts, or the Orders and Regulations made thereunder, or any local Act relating to the supply of electricity, or any enactment relating
to matters incidental to such supply shall, as from such date as His Majesty in Council may fix, he transferred to the Minister of Transport, and accordingly references to the Hoard of Trade in any such Acts, Orders, Regulations, or enactments shall be construed as references to the Minister of Transport:
Provided that the power of appointing Electricity Commissioners under this Act shall be exercised by the Ministry of Transport with the concurrence of the Board of Trade.

Lords Amendment: At the end, insert the words
(2) The Electricity Commissioners shall be solely responsible to the Minister of Transport and, under his direction, shall carry into effect the powers and duties conferred upon them by this Act, and the Minister of Transport shall refer to the Electricity Commissioners for their advice all matters connected with the exercise and performance of the powers and duties transferred to him under this Section except the appointment of the Commissioners and except. where any act of, or Order by, the Commissioners is by this Act expressly made subject to the approval of or an appeal to the Minister.

—Agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us generally what is the effect of these Amendments?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): These are largely drafting Amendments. Some of the others are the result of an understanding arrived at in the House on the Report stage. I would call attention to the first Amendment to Clause 5, after the word "construction," to insert the words "within their area," which will require a consequential Amendment further on. Then the prohibition of the demolition of houses is dealt with in the other House by giving an appeal to the Minister. One important Amendment is designed to carry out a pledge given in this House with the view of protecting commons. Another Amendment is directed to carry out an understanding arrived at to discriminate between the London County Council, the City Corporations and the borough councils. There is no other Amendment of consequence until we come to one which is in pursuance of the policy laid down by an Amend-
ment, moved by private Members and pressed upon us in this House, and which was out of order as moved. It was inserted in another place, and the Government now advises the House to accept it. It is very much wanted by the local authorities. If the question of privilege should arise, I shall ask the House to waive it. Otherwise, we accept all Amendments as they are on the Paper.

Mr. ACLAND: As the points which have been explained by the right hon. Gentleman are rather detailed and complicated, would it not be better to adjourn consideration of them until after the discussion on Ireland? Is that possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW (the Leader of the House): I am sorry to say that that course is really not possible, if we are to adjourn as understood, because we cannot be certain that the changes we make here will not require reconsideration in another place.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provision for Payment of Money to Persons Constructing Houses.)

(2) Grants under this Section shall be made only in respect of houses
(a) which comply with the conditions prescribed by the Minister and are in material accordance with the conditions-as to the number of houses per acre and the standards of structural stability and sanitation approved by the Minister in the case of any scheme carried out by a local authority under Section one of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919;
((c)) the construction of which is begun within, twelve months after the passing of this Act and which are completed within that period or such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister may in any special case allow:
Provided that a proportionate reduction of the grant shall be made in respect of any house which is not completed within the said period of twelve months unless the Minister is satisfied that the failure to complete the house within that period is due to circumstances over which the person constructing the house had no control,
(3) In so far as the provisions of any building by laws are inconsistent with the conditions prescribed by the Minister under this Section, those provisions shall not apply in respect of any houses which comply with those conditions.
Provided that, as regards the administrative county of London, the Minister shall not prescribe any conditions inconsistent with the provisions of any building by-laws n force in the county except after consultation with the
London County Council on the general question of the relaxation of such provisions in connection with housing schemes.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2,a) leave out the words "carried out," and insert instead thereof the word "submitted."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that we are to pay grants for schemes not carried out?

Dr. ADDISON: The scheme has to be dearly in accordance with the proposal submitted by a local authority and approved by the Minister of Health. Of course, the scheme is submitted a long time before it is carried out. It has to be in accordance with the conditions of the scheme submitted and approved.
Queston put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (2, c) leave out the word "is"["within that -period is due"], and insert instead thereof the word "was."—Agreed to.
In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "housing schemes," and insert instead thereof the words "the construction of houses under this Act"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Aggregate Amount of Grants.)

(1) The aggregate amount of the grants to be made for the purposes of the preceding Section of this Act shall not exceed fifteen million pounds.
(2) A grant shall not be made under the pre. ceding Section of this Act in respect of any house in respect of which any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament may be made under Section seven or Section nineteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, and a payment shall not he made under those Sections in respect of any house in respect of which a grant has been made under this Act.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), after the word "under"["a grant has been made under this Act"], insert the words "the preceding Section of."— Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s 7 and s. 19 of 9 and 10 Geo. 5, c. 35, with respect to Amount of Annual Payments.)

Section seven of the Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919 (which provides for the recoupment out of moneys provided by Parliament of losses incurred in connection with certain schemes), and Section nineteen -of that Act (which provides for the contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament towards costs incurred by public utility societies and housing trusts) shall respectively have effect as though for the words "equivalent to thirty per centum
of the annual loan charges," where they occur in each of those Sections, there were substituted the words "equivalent during the period ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, to fifty per centum and thereafter to thirty per centum of the annual loan charges.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "and"["Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919"].—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Prohibition of Building Operations which. Interfere with Provision of Dwelling houses.)

(1) Where it appears to a local authority that the provision of dwelling accommodation within their area is or is likely to be delayed by a deficiency of labour or materials arising out of the employment of labour or material in the construction of any works or buildings, and that the construction of those works or buildings is in the circumstances of the case of less public importance for the time being than the provision of dwelling accommodation, the authority may by Order prohibit for such time and on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time prescribe, and either in whole or in part, the construction of those works or buildings.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an Order made by a. local authority under this Section may, subject to rules of procedure to be made by the Minister, appeal to the Minister, and on any such appeal the Minister shall refer all such cases to a standing tribunal of appeal to be appointed by the Minister consisting of five persons who have power either to annul the Order or to make such Order in the matter as the local authority could have made. and the decision of the tribunal of appeal in the matter shall be final and not subject to appeal to or review by any Court.

(6) Any Rules of Procedure made by the Minister under this Section shall be laid on the Table of the House for twenty-one days.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "within" ["accommodation within their area."3, and insert instead thereof the word "for"—[Dr. Addison.]

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), after the word "construction "1"material in the construction of any works or buildings "3, insert the words "within their area."—Agreed to.

After the word "buildings"["material in the construction of any works or buildings"], insert the words "other than works or buildings authorised or required by, under or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for one word of explanation. It seems to me that the powers under this
Amendment are very wide. May we have some assurance that it will not include a great many buildings? This is a weakening of a Clause which was universally welcomed in all quarters of the House.

Dr. ADDISON: It is only a very small percentage of buildings that it will apply to—post offices and works of that kind.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (2), after the word "appeal" ["standing tribunal of appeal"] insert the words "consisting of five persons."—Agreed to.
Leave out the words "consisting of five persons who" and insert instead thereof the words "which shall."—Agreed to.
In Sub-section (7) leave out the words "on the Table of the House for twenty-one days," and insert instead thereof the words
before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made
—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Prohibition on Demolition of Dwelling Houses.)

If any person at any time after the third day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, without the permission in writing of the local authority within whose area the house is situate, demolishes, in whole or in part, or uses otherwise than as a dwelling-house any house which was at that date in the opinion of the local authority reasonably fit or reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation. he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each house demolished or so used to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such imprisonment and fine, and where the person guilty of an offence under this Section is a company, every director and officer of the company shall be guilty of the like offence unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his consent or connivance.

Lords Amendment: After the word "connivance "["without his consent or connivance"] insert the words
(2) Any person to whom permission to demolish a house has been refused by a local authority under this Section, may appeal to the Minister on the ground that the house is not capable without reconstruction of being rendered fit for human habitation, and any such appeal shall be dealt with in the same manner as an appeal under Sub-section (2) of the preceding Section of this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Section the permission of the local authority shall not be required in the case of any house the demolition of which is required or authorised by, under, or
in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, or which is used otherwise than as a dwelling-house for any statutory purposes.

—Agreed to.

Amendment made: At the end of the Lords Amendment last inserted, insert the words
or which is occupied or used otherwise than as a dwelling-house before the third day of December, 1919."—[Dr. Addison.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Powers of Borrowing for Purpose of Housing Acts.)

(1) A local authority (including a county council) may, with the consent of the Minister, borrow any sums which they have power to borrow fur the purpose at the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, by the issue of bonds (in this Act referred to as "local bonds") in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "purpose," and insert instead thereof the word "purposes"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 9;—(Power of Trustees to Invest in Certain Securities Issued by Local Authorities.)

Section one of the Trustee Act, 1893 (which specifies the securities in which trust funds may be invested) shall have effect as though there were included therein local bonds issued under this Act and mortgages of any fund or rate made after the passing of this Act under the authority of any Act or Provisional Order by a local authority (including a county council) which is authorised to issue local bonds under this Act.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "made "["fund or rate made "], and insert instead thereof the word "granted"—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Acquisition. Of Land for Purpose of Garden Cities or Town-Planning Schemes.)

(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that any local authority (including, a county council) or two or more local authorities jointly, or any authorised association, are prepared to purchase and develop any land as a garden city (including a garden suburb or a garden village), or for -the purpose of a town-planning scheme for the area in which the land is situate, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, and have funds available for the purpose, he may with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Transport, acquire that land on behalf of the authority or association either by compulsion or by agreement in any ease in winch it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of securing the development of the land as aforesaid, and may for that purpose exercise any of the powers of a local authority in relation to the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts, 1894 to 1919. and may do all such things as may be necessary to vest the land so acquired in the local authority or association.

Lords Amendments: In Sub-section (1), after the word "or"["or for the purpose "], insert the words "any land in regard to which such a scheme may be. made."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "and may for that purpose exercise any of the powers of a local authority in relation to the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919."—Agreed to.

After Sub-section (1) insert the words
(2) The provisions of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, relating to the powers of a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, shall apply for the purpose of the acquisition of land by the Minister under this Section, and the Minister in exercising his powers of acquiring land under this Section shall be subject to the same conditions as are applicable to the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, by a local authority;
Provided that in the case. of an Order for the compulsory acquisition of land on behalf of an authorised association the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not be confirmed by the Minister unless and until both Houses by Resolution have approved the Order nor if any modifications are agreed to by both Houses, otherwise than as so modified.
(3) A local authority shall have power to acquire land for the purposes of a scheme approved by the Minister under this Section and to develop any land so acquired in accordance with the scheme, and shall have power to borrow as for the purposes of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, any money required for the purpose of so acquiring or developing any land.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11— (Meaning of Local Authority53 and 54 Viet. c. 70.)

In this Act the expression "local authority means the local authority within the Meaning of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890:
Provided that for the purpose of the application of the provisions of this Act (other than those relating to expenses under Section sixteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919) to the country of London the London Connty Council shall be the local authority to the exclusion of any other authority, except that in the City of London the common council of the city shall he the local authority for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the prohibition of certain building operations and the prohibition of the demolition of dwelling-houses.

Lords Amendments: Leave out the words
except that in the City of London the common council of the city shall be the local authority for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the prohibition of certain building operations and the prohibition of the demolition of dwelling houses.

and insert instead thereof the words
and that in the City of London the London County Council shall be the local authority for
The purpose of the certificate as to the completion of houses to be given under the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of money to persons constructing houses.

—Agreed to.

After Clause 11, insert

CLAUSE A.—(Execution of Act in County of London.)

For the purpose of securing the proper execution of this Act in the administrative county of London, the London County Council shall have the power to require a district surveyor under the London Building Act, 1894, to perform within his district such duties as the Council think necessary for that purpose, and the Council may pay to a district surveyor such remuneration as they may determine or respect of any duties performed by him in pursuance of this Section.

—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Ireland.)

This Act, in its application to Ireland, shall have effect with the following modifications, namely
(2) References to the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, shall be construed as references to the housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1919, references to the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, shall he construed as references to the housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, and references to Part II., to Section seven, and to Section nineteen of the first-mentioned Act shall respectively be construed as references to Part I., to Section five, and to Section fifteen of the last mentioned Act:
(3) References to the Public Health Act, 1875, shall be construed as references to the Public health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and references to Section two hundred and seventy-nine and to Section two hundred and thirty-three of the first-mentioned Act shall respectively be construed as references to Section twelve and to Section two hundred arid thirty-seven of the last-mentioned Act:

Lords Amendments: in paragraph (2), leave out the words "to Part II"—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "to Part I."—Agreed to.

In paragraph (3), leave out the words "and to Section two hundred and thirty-three"—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "respectively."—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "and to Section two hundred and thirty-three."—Agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Short, Title and Duration.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.
(2) The provisions of this Act, other than the provisions thereof relating to powers of borrow-
1167
ing for the purpose of the Housing Acts, 1890 to 1919, the Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Act, 1916, and the acquisition of land for the purpose of garden cities and town-planning schemes, shall continue in force for two years only from the commencement thereof, and no longer:

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section(2), after "1916," insert the words "trustee securities."—Agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

PROVISIONS AS TO LOCAL BONDS.

3. The provisions of Section one hundred and fifteen of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which relates to composition for stamp duty), shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply in the case of any local authority by whom local bonds are issued as if those bonds were stock or funded debt of the authority within the meaning of that Section.
5. The Minister may with the approval of the Treasury make Regulations with respect to the issue (including terms of issue), transfer and redemption of local bonds, and any such Regulations may apply, with or without modifications, any provisions of the Local Loans Act, 1875, and the Acts amending that Act, and of any Act relating to securities issued by the London County Council or by any other local or public body.

Lords Amendment: At the end of paragraph 3, insert the words
4. A local authority shall, in the case of any person who is the registered holder of local bonds issued by that authority of a nominal amount not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred pounds, pay the interest on the bonds held by that person without deduction of -Income Tax, but any such interest shall be accounted for and charged to Income Tax under the third case of Schedule D in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918, subject, however, to any provision of that Act with respect to exemption or abatement.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot allow this provision to pass without entering a caveat. The matter has been brought to the notice of the Income Tax Commission, and I must say how very strongly I feel that a proposal to waive the principle or taxation at the source should never be passed without the most careful investigation. Our revenue, perhaps, more largely depends upon the principle of taxation at the source than on anything else, and although this is not an important deviation from it, and I do not desire to divide the House or to speak at any length, I do not think it would be right that this should be done without attention being called to
it, because every departure from that principle, however unimportant, is setting the foundation of what is, perhaps, the most important provision in our Income Tax Law.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In paragraph (5), after the word "bonds"["redemption of local bonds,"] insert the words "and the security therefor."—Agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn."

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I feel that I have a task which is about as difficult a task as any Minister has ever been confronted with. It is to attempt to compose an old family quarrel, a quarrel which has degenerated many a time into a blood feud—a difficult task under any circumstances, but difficult indeed immediately after such a discreditable outrage as that which was perpetrated in Dublin on Friday last.. An atmosphere charged with the reek of attempted assassination is not a favourable one in which to promote a measure of reconciliation. The dastardly attack on a brave Irish soldier, who by his gallantry had added lustre to the renown of his race, was not merely most cowardly, but one of the most foolish incidents in the history of political crime. Unfortunately, such incidents have happened before at inopportune moments.
When—in 1882 I think it was—Lord Frederick Cavendish had been sent over with a message of peace and reconciliation, there came that terrible crime at the memory of which we still shudder, and for the moment the path of reconciliation became difficult. The history of Ireland is full of these untoward incidents. I am glad that the chiefs of the Catholic Church in Ireland have lost no time, not merely in denouncing, but in denouncing in unmeasured laguage, this outrage. The experience of the past has shown us that these murder societies that thrive now and again are small and disreputable. They choose opportunities like these because they do not seek reconciliation.
They want to make reconciliation impossible. To turn back when we started on that path would be to play into their hands. It makes the task of statesmanship more difficult, but it also makes the test of statesmanship more real. On similar occasions in the past the British Parliament has declined to allow its judgment to be swept away even by honest indignation. It would be playing the game of those miscreants to take any other course now. They, fortunately, missed the object of their crime. They inflicted a serious injury alone upon the interests of the country they were pretending to serve.
I should like to review shortly the present position in reference to self-government for Ireland. The first fact of which the House will take note is that there is a Home Rule Act on the Statute Book. Unless it be either postponed, repealed, or altered, it comes automatically into operation the moment the War ceases. That is the first fact of which the House will take cognisance. Legislation, therefore, is indispensable. It may be asked, "Why not allow it to come into operation?" I am afraid it is no answer to that question to say, "Because no one wants it. There is no section in Ireland that wants the Act of 1914."That is not a sufficient answer, because I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any proposals that you could put forward from this box which would be in the least degree possible or practicable or acceptable to British opinion at the present moment, which have any chance of acceptance now, in the present position of Irish affairs. We must get that fact right into our minds. Therefore, we must take our responsibility, and propose what we think is right and fair and Just. Settlement will be found, not in the enactment, but in the working. There are two reasons why the Act of 1914 is inapplicable. The first is that it is not workable without fundamental alteration. Its finance would not work, and there are some other provisions that would not work without considerable amendment. That, I think, is acknowledged on all hands. The second reason is this. When it was placed on the Statute Book, its promoter gave an undertaking that it should not be brought into operation until an Act of Parliament had been carried dealing with the peculiar position of -Ulster. That was a definite undertaking, given with the assent of the Irish
Nationalist representatives. It was given by Mr. Asquith. Therefore we cannot contemplate the allowing of the Act of 1914 to come into operation without changes adapted to the altered condition since 1914, and changes that would deal with the position of Ulster, which has been recognised by the Leaders of all parties in this House.
Now what is the problem we have to deal with? There are two basic facts that lie at the foundation of any structure which you have to build up in Ireland. They are not pleasant ones, but they are still facts. The first is that three-quarters of the population of Ireland are not merely governed without their consent, but manifest bitter hostility to the Government. It is no use seeking the reason; that is the fact, It is the one country in Europe—one must state these facts, however unpleasant they are—it is the one country in Europe, except Russia, where the classes who, elsewhere, are on the side of law and order, are out of sympathy with the machinery of law and order. What makes this more serious is the fact that it is not due to material grievances. I remember when it used to be argued that, if you could improve the social and economic conditions in Ireland, if you could get rid of agrarian troubles, if you improved the housing, if you created a peasant proprietary, if you built railways, if you constructed harbours—if you did everything that was possible in order to make Ireland as prosperous as the conditions would allow, all this objection to British rule would vanish. What has happened? Ireland has never been so prosperous—

Mr. J JONES: She has never been so national.

The PRIME MINISTER: —as she is to-day. Scores of millions—I am not sure I could not say hundreds of millions—have been expended lavishly by the British taxpayer upon making Ireland contented and happy. The vast majority of the cultivators of Ireland are the possessors of their own soil. You have houses built — comfortable cottages for workmen—at the expense of the British taxpayer. A man who travelled through Ireland a generation ago, and revisited that country, would not know it to-day. It is completely transformed and transfigured. But the fact remains that Ireland has never been so alienated from British rule as she is to-day. Therefore,
the grievance, such as it is, is not a material one. Irishmen claim the right to control their own domestic concerns, without interference from Englishmen, Scotsmen, or Welshmen. That is a fundamental fact. They fought for it for hundreds of years, and they never held that view more tenaciously than they do to-day.
What is the second fact? It is also a fundamental fact that you have a considerable section of the people of Ireland who are just as opposed to Irish rule as the majority of Irishmen are to British rule. Both those facts must be taken into account. The first is, perhaps, disagreeable to one body of Members of this House, and the second disagreeable, perhaps, to another body of Members of the House. It is not our business to seek for facts agreeable to anybody, but to seek for the facts, whether they be agreeable or not. In the North-East of Ireland we have a population —a fairly solid population, a homogeneous population—alien in race, alien in sympathy, alien in religion, alien in tradition, alien in outlook from the rest of the population of Ireland, and it would be an outrage on the principle of self-government to place them under the rule of the remainder of the population. In the North-East of Ireland, if that were done, you would inevitably alienate the best elements from the machinery of law and order. I do not say you would produce the same result, but it would recreate exactly the same position which we have tried to eliminate in the South. This is an important point. It has been challenged on such a scale, the case for it has been so little stated outside the United Kingdom, that. I think it vital I should dwell for a short time upon it this evening. It is riot because I attach more importance to it than I do to the first proposition. It is because the first proposition is accepted outside—in the Dominions, in the United States of America, in European countries. The second has not been stated, and it is not known. I shall state it, not in my own words, but in two quotations, from witnesses who certainly are not biassed in favour of the North-Eastern part of Ireland. The first is a quotation from a very remarkable letter written in June, 1916—quite recently—by Father O'Flannigan, a very able Irish Catholic priest, who, I believe, afterwards became Vice-President of Simi Fein. I do not know whether he
holds that position still. No one can, doubt, at any rate, that he is in sympathy with the Nationalist claim in Ireland. This is what he said upon this particular subject:
If we reject Home Rule rather than agree to the exclusion of the -Unionist part of Ulster, what case have we to put before the world? We can point out that Ireland is an island with a definite geographical bc[...]dary. That argument might be all right if we were appealing to a number of island nationalities that had themselves definite geographical boundaries. Appealing, as we are, to Continenta[...]l nations with shifting boundaries; that argument will have no force whatever. National and geographical boundaries scarcely ever coincide. Geography would make one nation of Spain and Portugal; history has made two of them. Geography did its best to make one nation of Norway and Sweden; history has succeeded in making two of them. Geography has scarcely anything to say to the number of nations 'upon the North American continent; history has done the whole thing. If a man were to try and construct, a political map of Europe out of its physical map, he would find himself groping in the dark—
Geography has worked hard to make one nation out of Ireland; history has worked against it. The island of Ireland and the national unit of Ireland simply do not coincide. In the last analysis the test of nationality is the wish of the people. A man who settles in America becomes an American by transferring his love and allegiance to the United States. The Unionists of Ulster have never transferred their love and allegiance to Ireland. They may be Irelanders, using a geographical term, but they are not Irishmen in the national sense. They love the hills of Antrim in the same way as we love the plains of Roscommon, but the centre of their patriotic enthusiasm is London, whereas the centre of ours is We claim the right to decide what is to be (air nation. We refuse them the same right. We are putting ourselves before the world it the same light as the man in the Gospel who was [...]ergiven the ten thousand talents, and who proceeded immediately to throttle his reighb[...]r for one hundred pence. After three hundred years, England has begun to despair of compelling us to love her by force, and so we are anxious to start where England left off, and we are going to compel Antrim and Down to love us by force.
That is a very remarkable statement, and I quote it not merely because it is a forcible, pregnant, and eloquent statement of the case, hut because no man can say that it conies from the lips of a reviler of Ireland, or of a man who has no sympathy for national and Catholic Ireland. I think I must trouble the House with one other short quotation, because it is so much better that this testimony should come from the lips of those whose right to speak on the subject is not to be challenged, and whose sentiments towards Ireland have not been. disputed even by the strongest Nationalists. I remember, in this House, once uttering a sentiment of
this kind, and I was criticised when I made the statement, very strongly, and not altogether from the Nationalist benches. I am very glad to be able to give this quotation from Father O'Flannigan. Now I come to the next quotation, from another very able Irish priest, who is a professor of theology in the Maynooth College, Father MacDonald, I think his name is—
Were Ireland made a Republic, fully independent of Great Britain, it seems to me that she would be hound to allow Home Rule to the North-East corner, on the principles that underlie the claim we make for Home Rule in the United Kingdom, which regard as well founded. The Protestants of Ulster differ from the majority in the rest of the island, not only in religion, but in race, mentality, and culture generally. They are at once homogeneous and hetrogeneous —homogeneous in their districts, of which many are contiguous: hetrogeneous as compared with the rest of Ireland. A minority in Ireland, they are a majority in the North-East corner, and, therefore, on the principles that we have been advocating, are entitled to Home Rule.
These wo quotations state the case which I have many a time attempted to put front this box in favour of the separate treatment of Ulster. If they unite, they must do it of their own accord. To force union is to promote disunion. There may be advantages in union—I do not deny it. The geographical conditions are such as to make desirable. There is an advantage in mingling races and religions so as to contribute varied ideas so as to have a different outlook; and there is undoubtedly an advantage in having the industrial and the agricultural population working side by side in the same Parliament. But that is a matter for those populations, and no one else, to decide. Lord Durham attempted to force Quebec and Ontario to join Upper Canada in the same Parliament. The plan had to be abandoned. Separate Parliaments had to be given to them, and it was only on that condition that confederation was accomplished. At the beginning, by forcing them together, you created antagonism. The moment you had separation, confederatian was possible.
The third fundamental condition is that any arrangement by which Ireland is severed from the United Kingdom, either nominally or in substance and in fact, would be fatal to the interests of both. You have only got to look at what occurred in the late War to realise what would happen. If Ireland had been a separate unit, with a separate Parliament, s hostile republic there—

An HON. MEMBER: Would it be hostile?

The PRIME MINISTER: You could not guarantee that it would not be. A. hostile republic there, or even an unfriendly one might very well have been fatal to the cause of the Allies. The submarine trouble was bad enough, in all conscience, to overcome. There were many moments that were full of anxiety, not from fear—because those who were, dealing with it were men of great courage—but from a knowledge of the difficulties. But if we had had there a land. over whose harbours and inlets we had no control, you might have had a situation full of peril; a situation that might very well have jeopardised the life of this country. Time area of submarine activity might have been extended beyond the limits of control, and Britain and her Allies might have been cut off from the Dominions and from the United States of America. We cannot possibly run the risk of a possibility such as that. And it would be equally fatal to the interests of Ireland. Irish trade would decline, for Irish trade interests are intertwined with those of Great. Britain. Britain is Ireland's best customer. It would be fatal to Irish interests as well. If Great Britain, with all its infinite resources, cannot govern a hostile Ireland, I do not see how Ireland could control a. hostile North-East, with a great population of the same race, religion and interests, across a narrow channel. There would be trouble, there would be mischief. There might be bloodshed, and then the whole black chapter of misunderstanding between Great Britain and Ireland would be rewritten over again. We cannot enter upon that course, whatever the cost. I think it is right to say here, in the face of the demands which have been put forward from Ireland, with apparent authority, that any attempt at secession will be fought with the same determination, with the same resources, with the same resolve as the Northern States of America put into the fight against the Southern States. It is important that that should be known, not merely throughout the world, but in Ireland itself.
7.0 P.M.
Subject to those three conditions, we propose that self-government should be conferred upon the whole of Ireland, and our plan is based on the recognition of those three fundamental facts: First, the impossibility of severing Ireland from the United Kingdom; second, the opposition
of Nationalist Ireland to British rule in Ireland; and third, the opposition of the population of North-East Ulster to Irish rule. The first involves the recognition that Ireland must remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. The second involves the conferring of self-government upon Ireland in all its domestic concerns. The third involves the setting up of two Parliaments, and not one, in Ireland. That is the first proposal which we mean to recommend to Parliament—that there should be two Legislatures set up in Ireland. I will deal first of all with the 7.0 p.m. areas. One will be the Parliament of Southern Ireland; the other will be the Parliament of Northern Ireland. There are four alternative proposals which have been discussed with regard to boundaries. The first is that the whole of Ulster should form one unit, and the other three Provinces should form the other units of self-government. The objection to that is that it would leave a large area where there is a predominantly Catholic and Celtic population in complete sympathy with the Southern population. The second suggestion is county option. The objection to that is that it would leave solid communities of Protestants who are in complete sympathy with the North-Eastern section of Ireland outside, under a Government to which they are rootedly hostile. It is sometimes impossible to avoid that, but it is desirable to avert it where practicable, and no boundary has ever been fixed either in the United States or the Dominions by that process, The next suggestion is that these North-Eastern counties should form a unit. There is the same objection to that, because there are solid Catholic communities in at least two of these counties which are co-terminous with the Southern population; and it would be undesirable from the point of view of the North-Eastern Province to attach them to the Ulster Parliament. The fourth suggestion is that we should ascertain what is the homogeneous North-Eastern section, and constitute it into a separate area, taking the six counties as a basis, eliminating, where practicable, the Catholic communities, whilst including Protestant communities from the coterminous Catholic counties of Ireland, in order to produce an area as homogeneous as it is possible to achieve under these circumstances. So much for the areas which will be the basis of the constitution of these two Parliaments.
I now come to two additional features of the Government proposal which differentiate it from the Act of 1914, and even from the American precedent. We propose that every opportunity shall be given to Irishmen, if they desire it, to establish unity, but the decision must rest with them. If they agree, it will require no Act of the Imperial Parliament to enable them to accomplish it. There are two proposals which we have in mind in order to attain that, object. The first is that there shall be constituted from the outset a Council of Ireland, consisting of twenty representatives elected by each of the two Irish Legislatures. This Council will be given the powers of private Bill legislation from the outset; but otherwise we propose to leave to the two Irish Legislatures complete discretion to confer upon it any powers they choose within the range of their own authority. The Council, therefore, will not only serve as an invaluable link between the two parts of Ireland—an Assembly in which the leaders of the -North and of the South may come together, and discuss the affairs of their common country—but it constitutes the obvious agency from which the two Parliaments can, without the surrender of their own independence, secure that certain corn won services, which it is highly undesirable to divide, can be administered jointly as a single Irish service. I will give you one or two illustrations. The Government does not propose in the Bill to lay down what services it thinks should be so controlled. It proposes to leave this matter to be settled by the two Irish Legislatures themselves.

Lord R. CECIL: By agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes, by agreement. Nothing could be accomplished except by agreement between the two. For instance, take transportation—railways and canals. There are great trunk systems which, I believe, serve both areas. If the two Irish Legislatures agreed, they could give the control to this National Irish Council. I shall have a word to say later on with regard to this proposal. But that is an illustration of the kind of subject that might very well be delegated by the two Irish Legislatures to this Council, which represents both; but it can only be delegated by agreement on the part of both Legislatures.
Now I come to the second proposal, which we have put, forward with a view to
enabling Ireland to attain unity if both sections desire it. We propose to clothe the Irish Legislatures with full constituent powers, so that they will be able, without further reference to the Imperial Parliament, and by identical legislation, to create a single Irish Legislature, discharging all or any of the powers not specifically reserved to the Imperial Parliament. It will then rest with the Irish people themselves to determine whether they want union, and when they want union. The British Parliament will have no further say in the matter. If the Irish electorate so determine, they can return a majority in each province of Ireland with a mandate, even at the very first election, to bring about a union of the North and the South. The Government propose that certain additional taxing powers should be handed over to an Irish Parliament as soon as Irish union has been accomplished. With regard to Irish representation in this Parliament, we propose to adhere to the scheme of 1914—that is, a reduction of the numbers to forty-two Members for all purposes.
I next come to the powers of these two Legislatures. We propose to proceed on the basis of the principle of the Act of 1914—that is, of reserving powers to the Imperial Parliament, and leaving the residue of the powers to the two Legislatures. What I call the Federal or Imperial powers which should be reserved to this Parliament will include the Crown, peace and war, foreign affairs, the Army and the Navy, defence, treason, trade outside Ireland, navigation (including merchant shipping), wireless and cables. I shall have something to say later on about the Post Office, which we only propose to transfer to the Irish Parliament when there is complete agreement between North and South on the subject. Meanwhile the Post Office will be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. Then there will be also reserved coinage, trade marks, lighthouses, the higher judiciary, until agreement has been established by the two Parliaments as to how they are to be appointed.

Sir E. CARSON: When my right hon. Friend says "judiciary," does he mean that there is to be a judiciary for each Parliamentary area?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; it is proposed that all judges shall be appointed by the Imperial authorities until there is an agreement between the two Legisla
tures as to their appointment. I do not mean magistrates.

Sir E. CARSON: The question of area was what I meant.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Imperial, Parliament will have to make arrangements with regard to the areas to which they are to be allocated, but the appointments will be Imperial until there is an agreement between the two Parliaments or in the National Council as to the appointments. These powers correspond to the powers reserved wherever there is a federal constitution, whether it is in America or on the Continent of Europe. The power of the two Irish Parliaments will be very considerable. There will be full control over education, local government, land policy, agriculture, roads and bridges, transportation—including railways and canals—old age pensions, insurance—and under the Act of 1914 these were reserved to the imperial Parliament —municipal aflairs, housing, local judiciary, hospitals, licensing, all machinery for the maintenance of law and order, with, the exception referred to in connection with the higher judiciary, and, of course, the Army and Navy.

Mr. A, HENDERSON: What will be the position of the two Irish Parliaments with regard to labour legislation?

The PRIME MINISTER: Labour was not a reserved power. Labour legislation also will be dealt with by the local Legislatures. I come to the question of the Constabulary. The two Irish Legislatures must be responsible for the maintenance of law and order. It would be idle to set up Legislatures in a country with administrations which are not responsible for the administration of the law. It is the first duty of any Government. There is no-Provincial or National Legislature in the world which has not this as one of its primary duties. If that duty be not discharged, then that Government has no-right any longer to remain a Government. It is inconceivable that that should happen. It is equally inconceivable that it should be tolerated. But no administration could undertake the responsibility for order unless the machinery for maintaining order were placed at its disposal. If is, therefore, proposed not to retain the control of the Police in Imperial hands beyond three years. The Government propose to give security to members of the Police Force and to Irish Civil servants by
making provision whereby their pension rights are secured on the Irish Revenue in the event of either dismissal or resignation.
I now come to the Post Office. Under the Act of 1914 this became an Irish service. If Ireland is divided into two areas, there are administrative difficulties which, we are advised, would be so serious that we have come to the conclusion that it would be preferable to. postpone the transfer of the Post Office to Irish control until such time as the two Parliaments unite in asking that it should be transferred to the control of the Council of Ireland, or to any other common machinery that may be set up for the purpose. There will be searching Clauses for the protection of the rights of minorities in Ireland.
I next come to the very difficult, but all important problem, of finance. I think the best method of approach to this subject will be that I should take the proposals of 1914 as the basis of explanation. Those who are familiar with the subject will be better able to follow the scheme of the Government if they begirt with their knowledge of the Act of 1914. The Act of 1914 transferred no existing taxes. There was power to impose new taxes—if anyone could find them; but they were not to be substantially the same in character as any of the Imperial taxes. There Was power to vary Imperial taxes within limitations. The Home Rule Administration was financed under that Act by a lump sum equivalent to the cost of the Irish local services—a lump sum taken out of the Imperial Exchequer. Then there was provision for a surplus. To have deprived Ireland of the right of taxation, and simply given her a sum of money equal to what the services cost at that time, with-out any margin, would have starved the Parliament into bankruptcy. There was a margin provided. There was a surplus of £500,000 which, after three years, was to be reduced by £50,000 a year, until it reached the figure of £200,000. I need hardly say this Was an obviously inadequate figure. One can see now that that surplus was like a sand castle, which would have disappeared with the first lap of the tide. Since then we have had a great war. That has produced a twofold consequence, which has altered the whole character of the problem. The first consequence is that the National Debt has-increased eleven or twelvefold. The
second is that the cost of all the services is doubled owing to the depreciation of the value of money; and taxation has enormously increased. It has increased throughout the world, and the British Empire is no exception.
Under the Act of 1914 there was, so far as I can recollect, no contribution towards Imperial Revenue—the maintenance of the Empire. That is a supreme injustice, especially under present conditions, to the taxpayer of Great Britain. Irishmen throughout the world are bearing their share of the burdens of this great War. It was undertaken in order to emancipate a small Catholic nationality on the continent of Europe. It has achieved the emancipation of several Catholic nationalities—Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Croatia, among others. Irishmen in the United States of America bear their burden of taxation as a result of the War. In Canada, in Australia, in Great Britain, they do the same. I am sure Irishmen in Ireland would be ashamed not to bear their Share for the achievement of purposes which are so much in sympathy with the whole of their ideals. How is that to be ascertained? There are two alternative methods of arriving at the contribution to Imperial taxation and of the sum available for Irish local services. The first is the method of the 1914 Act. That is to transfer a lump sum equal to the cost of the services. This has the advantage, among others, of postponing the necessity of fixing the contribution until the normal is reached. But there are conspicuous disadvantages. There is one to which at the present moment, great weight should be attached. it is especially important during the first years of the experiment—before Ireland has felt its way to satisfaction arid contentment with the new system—to remember that the Machinery for the enforcement of the law will be in the hands of Irishmen—the machinery for the enforcement of the law against those who do not pay duties and taxes. During those first years it will be a temptation if the amount which is paid to the Irish local services be not dependent in the least upon the amount of taxation that is collected in Ireland. That is a temptation that ought not to he put in the way of any country, especially in the condition of unrest which will probably prevail in Ireland for, at any rate, the first few years of the trial of the establishment of self-government.
The Government, therefore, suggest another method, which would give the Irish Government the whole advantage of the duties and taxes raised in Ireland in excess of a fair contribution to the Imperial service. Commission after Commission has bean appointed to ascertain what is a fair contribution, and it is quite obvious that no fair apportionment is possible so long as the expenditure is abnormal. Therefore, we propose to take the present yield of the existing taxes as the basis, and for a short period—say two years —to assume that a fair contibution is the amount contributed, after the deduction of local services, in the year 1919–20. There will, in addition to that, be a free gift, in order to finance the Irish Parliament, or rather to give it a margin for development and improvement, but I will come to that later. I am now dealing only with the basis of contribution.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Both Irish Parliaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I mean both Parliaments. There will be the same basis of contribution for both. I think the best plan would be if I were to take the actual figures—to quote the famous phrase, I am using figures by way of illustration—because the figures, that is, the figures of the present year, are not normal, and cannot be treated as normal, but it gives an idea of what the Government have in their minds. The total revenue for 1919–20 derived from Ireland is £41,438,000—in so far as we can estimate it. The local services, including old age pensions and insurances, come to £12,750,000. The reserved services, including Police, Post Office, and Revenue Departments, bring that up to £19,550,000. Now the House of Commons has incurred additional liabilities under two or three heads in the course of this Session—one of them was incurred on Friday afternoon. They are in respect of 'services which are local services in Ireland. One is old age pensions, another is education, another is housing, another is health insurance. The last has not been incurred, but it is one of our proposals, and an addition will have to be made for the contribution to that service. Then there is another item which the House must take into account. Under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, agreements have been entered into and signed which
in the aggregate come to, I think, £17,500,000. Those are Imperial obligations. The Imperial Government has undertaken to put them through in terms which are very favourable to the Irish tenants, under conditions that are extremely unfavourable, at the present eminent, Lo the Exchequer. Still, that is the agreement, the bond, and the Imperial Parliament will, I have no doubt, honour it. This will cost another £500,000.
That brings the total Irish expenditure up to £23,500,000—expenditure for purely Irish services. Deducting that from the total revenue of £41,500,000, it will leave a contribution of £18,000,000 per annum towards Imperial expenditure. That is the amount which at the present moment the Treasury derive from Ireland, and which can be applied to the cost of the National Debt, the Army, the Navy, trade, and running the machinery of the Empire, and war pensions, of which there are a considerable number in Ireland. Before the end of the two years' period, a joint Exchequer Board will settle the fair contribution for the future, having regard to the relative taxable capacities of North and South Ireland and of the United Kingdom. That sum will hold for five years, and will then be open to revision. The Joint Exchequer Board will consist of an equal number of representatives of the United Kingdom and the two Irish Parliaments, with an independent chairman, This measure does justice to the two Governments in. Ireland, is based upon taxable capacity; and includes a means of revision. There is also room for economy in local services, the cost of which in many respects are high owing to unsatisfactory conditions in Ireland. These economies will inure to the advantage of the two Irish Governments.
I come now to the surplus which we propose to recommend to the House of Commons should be placed at the disposal of the two Irish Parliaments, for the purpose of improvements and developments in Ireland. No doubt there are many services which stand greatly in need of it, such as education, the payment of teachers, and the pensions of teachers. Then, no doubt, public opinion in Ireland will expect that some money should be spent upon industrial education, economic, and agricultural development. I think it is desirable that the Imperial Parliament, having regard to the past of Ireland, for which we are largely respon-
sible in this House, should deal generously with the two Irish Legislatures, so that they should not start with crippled finances. I believe in the end it will be wise expenditure for Great Britain if we can achieve contentment in Ireland by this process.
We propose, first of all, to deal with the initial expenditure which the two Parliaments must necessarily incur before we set the machinery going. It is proposed that there should be a grant to each Government of a single sum of £1,000,000, to cover the initial expenditure of setting up the machinery of government in the two areas. There ought also to be some provision of a permanent character, and the Government propose to provide this surplus out of the land annuities in Ireland. These annuities at the present moment amount to £3,000,000 per annum. In the Southern part of Ireland they have reached the figure of £2,400,000, and in the Northern part of Ireland the amount is £560,000. When the agreed purchases are completed there will be another £600,000, but I am not in a position to give the proportion between North and South in regard to that figure. The proposal of the Government is that these annuities should be handed to the Irish Governments is a free gift, for the purpose of developments and improvements in Ireland, to be deducted out of the contribution; that these Governments should collect the annuities themselves and retain them, and that the Imperial Government should undertake the burden which is now cast upon it of paying interest and the redemption of stock.
The next point to be considered in the scheme of finance is the taxation proposals. Under the 1914 Act there were no taxing proposals, and no taxes which concerned the Irish Parliament. It is proposed that each Irish Parliament shall have the taxing powers which, broadly speaking, are equivalent to those of State Legislatures in the United States of America,. The power of taxation is, of course, limited. The revenue contributed and collected by the Irish Legislatures under this scheme consist of the Land Annuities, Death Duties, Stamps, Entertainment Taxes, Licensing Fees, and any new taxes that ingenuity can devise, subject to restrictions as to Income Tax, Customs, and Excise. These resources together, on the 1919–20 basis and including the annuities, amount to £6,250,000 per annum.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is that amount for both Parliaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; it is for the whole of Ireland. The three great taxes—Income Tax, including Excess Profits, Customs, and Excise would be levied and collected imperially. May I just give quite shortly the considerations which have determined our judgment in this respect? The first is that the Imperial Government must have a substantial guarantee for the payment of the contribution. The second is the inherent difficulty of collecting these taxes, except by machinery common to the whole of the United Kingdom. Let me take the Income Tax first of all. As everybody knows, collection at the source is the sheet anchor of British finance, and that is why the income Tax in this country has been a greater triumph than any tax of the same kind in any other part of the world. If the Income Tax in Ireland were transferred to the Irish Legislature, no one would suffer more than Ireland itself, and certainly the Southern part of Ireland would suffer; but the Irish Parliament may levy a surcharge by way of additional Income Tax, and that corresponds to the power which is given in the States of America. But I say, quite frankly, it is very rarely exercised. The Irish Parliament may grant a levy to individuals out of their surplus revenue.
Now I come to Customs. The Government propose to follow the course which I think is pursued in every federal constitution in the world, by retaining these imperially. This is not merely a question of a Customs barrier between North and South; it is a question involving trade, industry, and commerce—considerations which might promote friction between North and South, and riot merely that, but between Ireland itself and the rest of the United Kingdom. When Ireland is united it will be open to the Imperial Parliament to review the situation, and consider whether it is desirable to give Customs to the United Irish Parliament, But meanwhile, we are of the opinion that, with a divided Ireland, it would be quite 'impractical to set up a Customs barrier between North and South.
With regard to the Excise, we should have been glad had it been possible to give this power of levying Excise Duties to the two Legislatures, because obviously you are ruling out a considerable source of revenue by not transferring it to
the Irish Administration. But there is some difficulty there—that if you gave Excise powers to the two Irish Legislatures, it would involve a Customs barrier between the North and the South; and certainly until union is achieved between the North and the South it would be undesirable, and I thin impracticable, to give power with regard to the Excise to either of the two Legislatures. Therefore, the position will be that the Irish Government would receive and retain the whole of the proceeds of all taxes levied by itself and the whole of the surplus proceeds of all taxes and duties levied by the Imperial Government in its territories, after deducting a fair contribution towards Imperial expenditure. In addition, £1,000,000 will be handed over for establishment expenses in each Legislature; and lastly, there will be a free gift of the annuities resulting from the land already sold to the tenant.
Those are the outlines of the proposals which the Government intend to embody in a Bill, and to submit for the consideration of Parliament at the earliest available opportunity. I will appeal not merely to the House of Commons, but to Irishmen and to all who are concerned in this problem, to give these proposals fair consideration. This is not the time to waste on recriminations. I am not sure that they are ever useful; in fact, I am sure that they are not. They never contribute to a settlement of any problem, and they hinder and embarrass the settlement of every problem. There have been plenty of mistakes on both sides. One would imagine, listening to one side of the story, that all the mistakes have been on the other side. It is not true. No race or country attempting to govern another has ever succeeded in doing it without a long array of blunders, and we are constantly taunted with these mistakes up to this hour. I am not concerned for the moment to deny the charge. Have there been no mistakes on the other side? Has Irish leadership always been blameless? I do riot want to enter even into recent events. All I wish to say is that there have been mistakes, there have been follies, there have been crimes on both sides; and we want that chapter to be closed for ever. The question is not who is to blame, but how to set it right, and that is not easy to answer. The worst of it is that, looking around, I find no section that can accept anything except the impossible. There is no section in Ireland who will stand up and say: "We
accept this," or "We accept that," except as to something which you cannot put through. Under those circumstances, the British Parliament must accept the responsibility to offer what wisdom and justice dictate, trusting to the working of those attributes to win acceptance and success in the end.
In solving the problem, it is important that both countries should realise thoroughly the limitations of acceptance on both sides. Unless Irishmen in Ireland have real control of their purely domestic affairs, it is idle to proceed. Shams exasperate. They provoke despair, and despair is the mother of disorder. On the other hand, let it be made quite clear once more that Britain cannot accept separation. It would be fatal to the security of these islands. It might be fatal to the life of Britain, and this is no time to advance it, when we have the, memories of the late War. The idea that Britain will be compelled by force to concede anything which would be unjust either to her own people or to anyone else, anything that would be fatal to her own life and security cannot be maintained. If men think that Britain can be forced, they cannot have read the story of the last five years.
There are many who will say, and I must admit with some appearance of reason and sense: "Is this the time to propose anything?" My answer is that there never has been, and there never will be, a perfectly acceptable time. There is a path of fatality which pursues the relations between the two countries, and makes them eternally at cross purposes. Sometimes Ireland demands too much; sometimes when Ireland is reasonable England offers too little; sometimes when Ireland is friendly England is sulky; sometimes when England has been friendly, Ireland had been angry; and sometimes when both Britain and Ireland seem to he approximating toward friendship, some untoward incident sweeps them apart, and the quarrel begins again. So, the fitting time has never been, and never will be. But it is always the right time to do the right thing; and Britain can afford now more than ever, and better than ever, to take the initiative. This is riot the time when anyone can suspect Britain of conceding from fear. No one can taunt the land that by its power destroyed the greatest military Empire in the world—largely through its own power—that it has simply quailed before a hind of wretched assassins. The world will know,
if we pursue this course, that we are entering upon it prompted by that deep sense of justice and right that has sustained this land during these years of suffering.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend, in his opening sentences, stated that he commenced his speech on this very important occasion under circumstances of difficulty almost unapproached by any Minister who at any time had endeavoured to deal with the question of Ireland. Undoubtedly that is so, and, speaking for those with whom I am accustomed to associate on this side of the House, we desire most emphatically to join in that statement of horror and indignation which he made at the recent attempt upon the life of the Viceroy of Ireland. A strange fatality, as he has more than once said in his speech, seems at critical times to dog the fate of Ireland. While I do not pretend to follow the Prime Minister in any detail through the proposals which he necessarily quite vaguely outlined, I desire at once to say that I welcome most warmly the fact that there was throughout his speech, as far as I could gauge it, an entire absence of any proposal for the further coercion of Ireland. I hope that was so, because I should imagine that the powers at present exercised by His Majesty's Government in Ireland are amply sufficient to deal with the situation, and I was hoping that one of the great differences between what happened in May, 1882, when Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke were foully murdered, and this occasion was that we were proceeding with proposals for conciliation and mediation and for the amelioration of the whole situation instead of being launched into another great scheme of coercion and repression. Until I hear very definitely to the contrary I am going to hope and persist in that belief. What is the position with which we find ourselves confronted? My right hon. Friend is the third Prime Minister who has risen in his place on that side of the House and proposed a Home Rule measure: Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Asquith, and now himself. On both previous occasions the benches below the Gangway were packed with eager, ardent representatives, truly elected and constitutionally selected representatives, of Ireland. To-night not a single Irish Member is in his place.

Major O'NEILL: Nationalist Member?

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. and gallant Friend will understand that I mean no. disrespect to himself.

Sir E. CARSON: You said that no Irish Member was present.

8.0 P.M.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I withdraw that expression. My meaning was perfectly. obvious. My right hon. and learned Friend is himself an Irishman, and I am sure that he did not agree with two or three remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with regard to Ulster. I am quite certain that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues below the Gangway reckon themselves as Irishmen in the full spirit of nationality. I certainly express my own personal regret that my lion. Friends, or some of them at any rate, are not present. After all, it is from this Parliament that any remedial measures mina issue. Here is the place that these things must be fought out, and I hope some day or other a happy issue w ill ensue. I want to emphasise one or two things that my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. Let us, he said, recognise the facts. That is of immense importance. First, you have the fact that the Home Rule Bill is on the Statute Book. That is a very important difference between this and the other occasions to which I have briefly referred. Then, of course, it is perfectly obvious that no measure can have the slightest nuance of success Ireland which is not to the fair-minded man demonstrably an improvement on the Act now on the Statute Book. The other point the right hon. Gentleman made is very striking and of great truth and importance. One of the monumental differences between the position now and when the first Home Rule Bill was passed was that were great agrarian grievances based upon great agrarian injustices. But since those days, and, indeed, since the introduction of the second Home Rule Bill, there has been a continuous development in the material prosperity of Ireland, so that now we find ourselves face to face with a position which never before existed in all the long ages during which men have sought to govern each other—we are face to face with what we call sentiment, with what, after all, lies, deeply and has the most profound meaning in the hearts of men. We have, therefore, to deal in the coming days with
the fact that the vast majority of the Irish nation—and there can be no doubt about it—are, for reasons which many people cannot fathom, but which all must recognise, in a state of what amounts to rebellion against His Majesty's Government. There are, if I may say so, two Governments in Ireland. One is the regular Executive which we know, but there also is undoubtedly in Ireland at the present moment a sort of de fecto authority to which vast numbers of the Irish people subscribe allegiance, and laced with that is an authority which is backed by 60,000 soldiers, supported by Artillery and infantry and by the whole panoply of modern German warfare. What I mean by that is that we had to adapt our ideas on the mechanical side of warfare to German ideals. You are face to face with a real difficulty, with a people almost in active rebellion, not for material gain, but for the achievement of the recognition of nationality.
My right hon. Friend stated that there was another very important point, and here I land myself in complete agreement. An Irish Republic is, I think, seriously contemplated on those shores, an extraordinary thing, I admit. It crossed my mind as the right lion. Gentleman was speaking that he was the first of the three Prime Ministers who had seriously admitted that. Go through the whole range of Mr. Gladstone's speeches and I think you will find nothing but a very slight reference to it, while in Mr. Asquith's speech, he introducing the last Home Rule Bill, it was ruled out as not worth discussion at all. But here my right hon. Friend seriously admits it is a proposal which is contemplated by men who, in normal circumstances, would have been Members of this House. It is a real difficulty showing how far we have travelled along this sad and almost hopeless road. Of Irish Nationalist Members, not one is here, and a very large number of the elected representatives of Ireland have been in prison, some of them almost daily since the meeting of this House. What is the cause of all this? It is of course difficult for anybody in a brief speech to analyse or even approximate, but I do suggest that during the last four or five years there has been nothing but blundering on the part of our Executive. I am bound to emphasise one or two of those blunders. When the Irish Convention met under the guidance of the present Prime Minister, who was specially asked by Mr.
Asquith, the then Prime Minister, to take the burden on his shoulders—when that Convention, in March, 1018, was assembled by common consent, there never was greater agreement amongst men on this tremendously difficult and awkward question.

Sir E. CARSON: There was no agreement at all.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am not speaking of ordinary agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend of course speaks from knowledge.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman must not talk like that. There was no agreement. IL is always assumed that there was agreement, but that the Government did not take it up. As a matter of fact the report was carried by, I think, a minority of the Convention—not a minority of those who voted. Apart from that two powerful sections of Irish opinion were unrepresented. One of the most powerful sections, Sinn Fein, declined to he represented. Mr. Wm. O'Brien refused to be represented. The Members for Ulster did not accept the report. Sinn Fein did not accept it. Mr. O'Brien did not accept it, Mr. Devlin did not accept it. The Catholic Bishops did not accept it. If there was any unanimity at all it was in rejecting the report.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is very interesting to hear W hat my right hon. Friend says. I am certain a very large number of earnest people on every side will feel that what he has said puts a different complexion on what was generally understood to be the outcome of the Convention, which is most disappointing.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I may say this however, that at that Convention—at the end of it—there was a greater measure of friendly exchange of opinion—

The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!

Sir D. MACLEAN: There was a larger measure of friendly interchange of proposals and opinions than had ever happened previously in regard to Ireland. If that were not so, my right hon. Friend, as the head of a Coalition Government representing some very perfervid Unionists, would not have been able to make the proposal he is making to-day. There was a friendly and favourable atmosphere. But I shall never forget the night when we were
informed of the proposal to introduce Conscription into Ireland. Those who knew Ireland and sympathised with Ireland agreed with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) when, speaking from these benches, he appealed that that proposal should not be pressed.

Brigadier-General PAGE CROFT: It was not pressed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Of course it was not! They found it impossible, but they put it into their Bill, and the mischief was done by that. The result was that a complete change took place in the political atmosphere in Ireland. Not very long before that Bill was introduced under these conditions there had been three by-elections at each of which a Sinn Feiner had been defeated, and, as far as I could judge from what my Irish friends told me, the Sinn Fein movement had received a check. But immediately afterwards the friends of the constitutional movement in Ireland threw up their hands in despair. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in eloquent phrases, how he believed the proposal broke John Redmond's heart with despair. Both John Redmond and William Redmond—

The PRIME MINISTER: John Redmond was dead before Conscription was introduced.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to say this with regard to these two men. They were denounced in this House as traitors to the country, as traitors to the Empire, and as enemies of the State. But time has justified them, and there is no man now who would charge either them or their colleagues with being anything but true sons with the best interests of Ireland at heart, and not unfriendly citizens of the British Empire. The position in which we find ourselves to-day is one, I agree, of extraordinary bitterness. I am not going to enter into any discussion of the proposals which my right hon. Friend has outlined to night. He has made a statement which might be altered by the Bill which he will introduce when we reassemble. I will only say this about it that so far as I am concerned, at any rate, any influence and efforts which I can put forward, to press forward even a step along the road will not be lacking. The time is too serious for party recriminations or for petty scores. No true friend, either of Ireland or of his
own country, desires for one moment but that this running sore should be closed, and a fresh start made. But, having said that, I feel bound to make one general observation—that I do not think the proposals of the Government go anywhere near far enough.
How things have progressed in Ireland! What you would have settled on thirty years ago no man suggests, nor even any one of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, is anywhere adequate to-day. What Parnell would have taken, what Redmond would have taken is a mere dust in the balance of what, is required to bring Ireland in now. If it is going to be useful at all, it will have to be a broad, generous, noble gift, which this proud people can accept. It was an enormous relief to me —and I want to repeat it—that as far as I could find, in my right hon. Friend's speech, there was no idea of vengeance, and I hope I am right in the belief that it is his intention that no more repressive measures shall be attempted in Ireland. You have got an immense machinery now, and what do you want with more than 60,000 troops? Is he going to take away the right of trial at a time when this House will not be sitting? That will be the test in Ireland. That is the sort of thing that will be the test as to whether they are going to trust us or whether they will think it is another English game. Mr. Gladstone once said, in a long letter to Mr. Forster, in 1882,
If we say we must postpone the question till the state of the country is more fit for it, I should answer that the least danger is in going forward at once. It is liberty alone which fits men for liberty.
That is the note which must be struck if we are ever to get Ireland to join the sisterhood of the British Empire. I believe she will gladly do it if we brush aside the horrors of our sad past. In the whole history of the commonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire, how have we solved in the past the difficulties in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa? Was it by niggling measures? It was by the great, broad, open-handed meeting of difficulties. How did we settle South Africa? The graves were scarcely green after the war when we gave a gift to South Africa which made her in this recent war a splendid and a noble partner. My right hon. Friend has been a member of this House for many years and he has been in all these great fights and taken a splendid
part in them; it is his opportunity; he is by far the strongest man to do it. Here is his opportunity. Is he going to seize with both hands, not hesitating, the opportunity to cure and settle this Irish question? That is how we settled it in South Africa. He was a, member of that Cabinet, and he knows what happened there. The half-and-half policy, the halting advance, was urged, but what won? The big policy, the open-handed policy, and if the half-and-half policy had been attempted we should never have got South Africa along with us. That that is the only way the whole history of the development of the British nation demonstrates beyond doubt, and as far as Ireland is concerned it is the only way we have never tried.

Sir E. CARSON: Anybody who looks at the constitution of the House to-day will readily understand the Herculean task that the Prime Minister has taken upon his shoulders. I am bound to say that to my mind it is a great pity that those who call themselves constitutional Nationalists would not do the House the honour of being here to-day to hear a scheme proposed for the future government of their own country—a scheme which at all events is, I think, an effort to face the real facts, and which is, I think, also an effort to do justice to those facts, whether I myself agree with them or not. But I, at all events, have never at any time hesitated, whenever schemes were put forward to try and settle this question, from doing my best to make such contributions as I could to the discussions. I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean), and really, at the end of it, if he will allow me to say so without meaning any disrespect, I do not know what he really wants. He talked a great deal about lost opportunities, and he talked a great deal about what he called coercive action in Ireland, as if murderers ought to be allowed to go free. He talked also a great deal of South Africa but he did not tell us what he would do except for this, and I was glad of this much. He told us that the idea of setting up a republic in Ireland was unthinkable. Was he driving at what is called Dominion Home Rule in his peroration? Did he mean that while a republic was unthinkable he would set up something which, by a mere stroke of the pen, could bring about the very thing that he says ought to be unthinkable to all people of Great Britain? I think the right
hon. Gentleman made little, if any, contribution to the Debate
I have spent the whole of my public life in fighting this question. I have done so from no parochial instinct. I have placed in the forefront always the Imperial side of the question, although my heart was, deeply moved with those in Ireland whom I knew best and who I wished, and still wish, should always share not merely in the local advantages of a united Parliament, but in the great Imperial advantages which that united Parliament brought with it. To-night, notwithstanding all that has happened, rather because of all that has happened, I stand here as firmly convinced as ever that for Ireland, for the United Kingdom, and for the Empire, a united Parliament is still the best solution. I have seen nothing in what has happened to lead me to any other conclusion, and I feel certain that we made a great mistake in the face of foreign nations when we proceeded upon a kind of basis as if Ireland had no political unity or freedom at all. What wars it that Pitt gave at the time of the Union? He gave not only equal rights with Great Britain, but greater rights as things have tarried out than Great Britain has. Ireland is not now in a subordinate position. She is in an equal position, or rather a superior position, because every Irishman has two votes for the one vote that an Englishman or a Scotchman has, and the real reason why the Act of Union has not succeeded, at all events in the recent years in which I have taken part in public life, is because Irishmen themselves, out of hatred of Great Britain for historical reasons mainly connected with religion, have refused' to take part in the government of their own country under this Imperial Parliament. For the last thirty years, certainly twenty-five, there has not been a single Government which would not most willingly have entrusted to men, say, like the late Mr. Redmond and some of his colleagues, the most important positions in the Irish Executive if they had been willing to accept them. Therefore do not let us always go on in the face of foreign nations protesting that we have clone something dreadful in Ireland in shutting them out from all kinds of political office. On the contrary, they have had the fullest opportunity of the same freedom that Englishmen and Scotsmen have had and it is their own election that they would not accept it as England and Scotland have done.
Many people imagine that when you make a change, you make an improvement. I am sure there are a number of Gentlemen opposite who imagine that when, I am us say, this bill is passed there will be a Utopia in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Policemen will never be shot again. That shooting has been going on there as long as I can remember. If it was not the shooting of a policeman it was the shooting of a landlord or of a tenant whose land was coveted or something of that kind. I would not be talking honestly if I did not say I do not believe the passing of the Bill will be for the good of Ireland or that Ireland will progress better under the Bill than she would if you continued the same relations as you have at present. Also, as a Southern Irishman, I look with the greatest apprehension on what will happen to the large body of loyal Unionists in the South and West whose fate you are proposing to hand over to the Parliament in Dublin. The Prime Minister said there would be ample securities for minorities. I have no confidence in those securities. I do not believe you can contrive securities. We all know what happened during the War, when under the Home Rule Act you had reserved the whole question of Army and Navy and the defence of the realm to yourselves and you passed a Bill for Conscription for Ireland and you were never able to put it into force. That is the value of a reservation, and that will be the same value as regards guarantees. But I do not set myself up as infallible upon these questions. I may be too pessimistic. If there is one thing more than another that I love in the Prime Minister it is his extreme optimism. I believe it did more to win us the War than anything that happened at home in this country, and if his optimism wins us peace in Ireland God knows I am not the one to regret it.
If I am asked to pronounce upon this scheme to-night I must absolutely decline to do so. I have seen three Home Rule Bills passed in my own time. Each of them was a perfect solution of the Irish question; at least so it was stated in the perorations of many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. When the first was passed it was to bring about a union of hearts, such as the world had never known before. When the second Home Rule Bill was proposed in 1893, the first perfect Home
Rule Bill was denounced as one which would have brought the greatest misery upon Ireland, and that was admitted by all the Nationalist Members, and when the third was brought in in 1912 we were told that if either of the two previous ones had passed there would have been nothing but financial ruin and chaos, and that was accepted by all sections of the House. The Prime Minister has told us about the one which is now on the Statute Book, that although only five years have elapsed since it became an Act and although it has never been even attempted to be worked, there is not a single soul in any party in Ireland who now wants it. He told us that it could not be worked, and he is right—that it could not be worked without another. Having lived through the history of these first Acts, and as an Irishman who does care for his country, I am not going to pronounce an opinion upon this one, at all events, until I see it in print. I was asked, as the Prime Minister knows well, to go to Ireland in the middle of the War, after the rebellion, and to agree to terms put before us by the Cabinet. I was not then a member of the Government. I went there, and after a great deal of exertion in the interests of the War lf got the Ulster people to agree to the particular settlement that was put before us. Immediately I came back here I was disavowed by a number of members of the Government and the settlement did not go through. Ever since I have been charged with being unfaithful towards those who are my own kith and kin in the South and West of Ireland. So far as I am concerned, and I speak for those who act with me here, I am not going over to Ireland until two things have happened, one is, until I see the Bill in print, and the other is, until I am assured by the Prime Minister that he means to go through with the Bill to the end. Nothing could be more damaging than that any of us should set about to try to bring this Bill or something of the kind into favour with those with whom we act, and then the Bill should he abandoned ask my right hon. Friend above all things to consider this: What does he think the effect of this Bill if it is abandoned will 13e. upon the administration of law and order in Ireland, and what does he think of the uncertainty of that splendid body of police who, whatever Government is in power, or whatever proposals are made, have always been so loyal to the Crown in doing their duty?
In joining in the general condemnation of the dastardly act which was attempted last Friday, let me say this, and I am sure the Lord Lieutenant will agree with me, that the life of any one of the policemen who have been killed is just as much worthy of notice in this House as the highest in the land. Lord French, who is an old soldier, and who looks upon them as his comrades there, will agree. Abandoning legislation of this character, and leaving those who administer the law in a condition of uncertainty, is about the very worst trait you can have.
Having said so much, let me take two of the facts referred to by the Prime Minister. In the first place, I am well aware that the Home Rule Act is upon the Statute Book. The Prime Minister said that that was one of the cardinal facts. So it must be to everybody who considers this question. I deplore its existence there, but I do not think that it is any use going back on the way in which it was put there, or the time it was put there, because I am anxious to avoid recrimination. There is one other fact, to me a, cardinal fact, and that is that this is the first Bill which has made the admission of Ulster's right to be treated as a separate entity. I believe that to be a great advance towards settlement. There is no use shutting your eyes to the fact that the people of the North of Ireland, the North-East part of Ulster, are as different from the South in their race, their religion, their ideals, and their views of you as it is possible to imagine. The whole conduct of Ireland in relation to the War has emphasised that fact. I am not saying that there were not good men and true who went out from the South and the West of Ireland. There were many of them, and I know to-morrow there will be many sore hearts who will say that you are deserting them. In the whole conduct of the War you can find no difference between the North-East of Ulster and any part of Great Britain_ They fought as you did, they sympathised as you did they grieved with you, they rejoiced with you, they made their fullest contribution to the War under the voluntary system, of almost any place. When you proposed Conscription they backed you. Ulster Members in the House were warned that if they backed conscription they would lose their seats and that conscription would be distasteful to the Ulster people. They backed Conscription in this House and the Ulster people backed
them, and they have been sent back here stronger than ever they have been and with greater majorities than have ever prevailed before. Therefore, the War has emphasised the position of Ulster in a way that it was never emphasised before as differing entirely from what prevails amongst the general body of citizens in the South and West of Ireland.
If anybody says, "You ought not to give separate treatment to Ulster," I ask them to go down and tell the country here that you propose to put Ulster under Sinn Fein, that you propose to put Ulster, which 'was prepared to do, and did, everything it could during the War, under those who joined in a German rebellion during the War, and I believe they would get short shrift from the constituencies in this country. That brings me to one point which I intend to emphasise to-night. Ulster has never asked for a separate Parliament. Ulster's claim has always been of this simple character: "We have thrived under the Union; we are in sympathy with you, we are a part of yourselves. We are prepared to make any sacrifice that you make, and are prepared to bear any burden that is equally put upon us with the other parts of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances keep us with you." They have never made any other demand than that, and to-night I appeal to the Government as the Bill is not yet brought in to keep Ulster in this united Parliament. I cannot understand why we should ask them to take a Parliament which they have never demanded, and which they do not want. Why not leave them here? Believe me, they have proved a great asset for you in the late War, in their shipyards and in their factories and in their volunteers at the Front, and why now you should ask them to accept a Parliament if they do not want it, I cannot understand.
May I remind my right hon. Friend, and also the Leader of the House, that in the letter upon which they went to the electorate that was the programme put forward. Certainly what was put forward in the letter was that Ulster should be exempt from the Home Rule Bill and should remain part and parcel of this country. What is gained by a second Parliament in Ireland? At the last General Election myself, and my colleagues, were all unanimous in putting forward closer union with this country, and I will show you, why in a moment. I have never
heard discussed in Ulster the question of a separate Parliament. I do not know what view they will take of it, but one thing I am certain of is that they prefer to remain in this Parliament. Of course, on the broad principle that I laid down, if this Parliament determines upon a system of devolution then Ulster could not object and would not object to the same treatment that Great Britain is getting. That would be quite right. I suggest to my right hon. Friend then to leave over the question of a separate Parliament for Ulster until the whole devolution problem comes to be considered. We want to remain with you. Do not turn us out. That is what they will say I know well when I go over there.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and those who have framed this Bill—and, as I understand, the right hon. Member for Widnes will speak in the course of the Debate, I hope that he will also consider this point—realise that Belfast has something more than one-tenth of the whole population of Ireland. It is certainly the greatest industrial centre in Ireland. It is only a few miles from Scotland. What is more, the men in those shipyards—and they are now greatly increasing in number—the men on the Clyde and the men who work on the Mersey are all engaged in one great business. They pass to and fro from one place to the other. In the linen trade part of the process takes place in the North of Ireland, part of the process takes place in Scotland, and the men pass to and fro in these trades. Now, is it really to be asserted that you are going to have better government for these men, or is it a possible solution that you put them under different labour laws from the labour laws of this country or different administration of the labour laws in one country or the other? In my belief that is absolutely impossible, and so far as I am concerned, and I believe that I speak the views of the majority of them on this point, I believe that they will get far better terms in the long run while trusting to the legislation of this Parliament, legislation no doubt goaded on by the great trade unions of this country of which these men are all members, for I believe 90 per cent of the trade unionists in benefit amongst the Irish industrial population come from the North of Ireland and I believe that these men will be far safer and far more secure in having their
interests cared for by this Parliament than they will ever be under a Parliament in Ulster.
I do not believe that labour is a proper subject for devolution. I do not believe that it is possible to run labour so closely connected with this country under different conditions. Are you to pass a forty-four hour week for the shipyard men in Belfast and a forty-seven hour week for the men across the way on the Clyde or the Mersey; and when you come down to other questions which are so akin to labour, in which labour is so interested—questions of nationalisation and all these kindred subjects—are those to be questions which the local Parliament in Ulster is to deal with, or are they to be questions to be dealt with by this Parliament?
I do not believe that it is possible for one moment to set up a Parliament in Ulster on these conditions without probably doing great injustice to these men At the same time let me say this I agree that it is a possible step towards dealing with the Irish question that you have treated North-East Ulster as a separate unit., and as you have done so I am not going here—do not misunderstand what I have said—to turn down your proposal. That is not my object. I have always said in this House and in Ulster that I would never do anything behind the backs of these people to bind them in the slightest degree. And so I say to-night. When I get the Bill and when I get the assurances I have referred to, I. will go there and I will take counsel with them. They are no fools. If they were you would not have had Belfast and its shipyards and its linen trade and aeroplanes to help you through the late War Upon their understanding of the question, and upon what they put forward, I would myself be greatly guided in the course I would take on this Bill.
Before I sit down I must put one or two questions to the Government—questions the answers to which will cause grave anxiety to many people, particularly in the South and West of Ireland. We want to know whether the Government have looked forward and tried to contemplate what will happen in Ireland if this Bill becomes law? I want to ask them if they have taken into consideration the various alternatives to what may happen? In the first place, I think we may take it for granted that the Sinn Feiners will have nothing to do with your Bill. There is no use shutting your eyes to that fact, and there is no use in not being prepared for
it. The Sinn Feiners have 72 per cent., I think, of the representation in Ireland. What view the party led in this House by the hon. Member for Falls (Mr. Devlin) will take about the Bill I am sure I do not know. I understand that the Prime Minister has said that he means to force the Bill through under all circumstances. He used the words: "Force the Bill," not to-night, but on a previous occasion. Do let us contemplate the various things that may happen. Here is what Mr. De Valera says:
I agree with Sir Edward Carson, that there is nothing between union and separation. There is not; from the very nature of things there can be no final or stable settlement of political issues between Ireland and England, intermediate between union and separation. There can be no real peace between Ireland and England until either Britain has assimilated Ireland and definitely annihilated the distinct national soul in Ireland which England has so far failed to do after 750 years of effort, or until England has definitely recognised that the soul has a right to seek its perfection in an independent Sovereign State. No Home Rule solution can be lasting.
9.0 P.M.
That is the very basis of the existence of the Sinn Fein party, which some people imagine is a new party, only recently sprung into existence, but which has been working in Ireland under different names certainly all my life. There is no use shirking the fact that the basis of their whole action is to get rid of England altogether. What I want to ask the Government is this: If Sinn Fein captures the Irish party, as I believe under present circumstances they are likely to do, have you pictured to yourselves what is likely to happen? The first thing they will do, indeed they have done it, is to proclaim a republic in Ireland. What are you going to do then? You cannot coerce a Parliament the day after you have set it up. If they proclaim a republic, believe me they will proclaim it for the whole of Ireland, and they will be in a position, being the Ministers of Parliament, to arm under various pretexts, and do you think that, after all they have said—unless you believe they were not in earnest—the Parliament that they set up, and which will enable them to do these things, will not immediately proceed and annexe Ulster? More than that, what are you pre pared to do if they declare a republic and refuse to allow your Customs officers or your Excise officers to exercise functions in Ireland? My right hon. Friend did not tell us, though no doubt there will be provisions in the Bill, as to how he pro
poses to collect revenue in Ireland. Will he have separate police there, or how will it be done? That is a very important matter.
There is another alternative. The Sinn Fein party may say "We will take no part in your Irish Parliament." It would be very bad leadership on their part, though they may think it is consistent. What then? The Parliament will be elected by a very small minority of the Irish people. Do you think they will have control over the Sinn Feiners, who will be in the majority? It is quite possible, and this I believe is a contingency which the Government ought to be prepared to face, that you will get no Parliament there to function for the purpose of these duties. What will you do then? You cannot leave the country without a Government. Of course, I know I may he told, and I am quite aware of the argument, that I am putting extreme ceases; that I am suggesting that the Irish are, as I think Mr. Gladstone used to say, constituted with a double dose of original sin. But who would have contemplated that seventy Members would have stayed away from this Parliament? Therefore, it is my duty, as an Irish representative, to turn to the people of this country upon behalf of Ireland generally, and especially upon behalf of those in Ireland whom I represent, and of those of my own kith and kin who live in the South and West of Ireland—the people I was brought up among—it is my duty to ask you, under these circumstances, what provision you have made for the government of Ireland. Let me once more press upon you the necessity of keeping Ulster as she is. Believe me, if troubles of that kind arise in Ireland, it will be far better for you to occupy, through this Parliament, the North-East of Ireland at any rate, in the troubles that may confront you. What is more, there will be far less likelihood of the South and West of Ireland interfering with Ulster, or attempting to interfere with Ulster, if you retain her in this united Parliament.
The Ulster Parliament, on the other hand, has attractions. I know that, once it is granted, unless they agree among themselves, they can never be interfered with. You cannot knock Parliaments up and down as you do a ball, and, once you have planted them there, you cannot get rid of them. Therefore, that would be the Parliament. It may be said
that this House would have control over Ulster if they remained here, and you might do the ungracious thing which many of you wanted to do—I put it on no higher ground—that, where they wanted to stay with you, and where you had no cause of complaint against them, you still want to kick them out as if they were of no use, to please somebody else who has since served you in the way you like. These are real difficulties in the way, and it is no use shirking them. We would be glad, before this Debate closes, if the Government would show that they have these matters in contemplation, and are prepared to deal with them.
That, I think, is all I have to say. Above all things, let me not be misunderstood. Do not imagine that I am trying to discourage the Prime Minister On the contrary. But I do not want him to embark under greater difficulties than are necessary. Any that he can avoid, he ought to avoid. Any part of Ireland that he can bring with him with enthusiasm, he ought to try and bring with him with enthusiasm. It is worth his while. So far as I am concerned, I shall take counsel with the people who have so long trusted me, who have trusted me almost more than any leader has ever been trusted, and have given me a latitude far beyond what is generally given to those who lead sections in this House. What they may determine to do, I do not know. But one thing I do know I will try to do what I have always done—direct them with full reason and the fullest courage.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I desire, at the outset, to associate myself, in the name of the Labour party, with the condemnation uttered by the Prime Minister and other speakers against the attempted assassination of Lord French. We consider that in that case, and in the case of the policemen who have been carrying out their duty, a policy has been applied that cannot be too strongly condemned. We believe that these methods merely bring disaster to any cause in the name of which the acts are perpetrated, however good and however important that cause might be. Whatever may be our opinions to-night of the policy that is being enunciated by the Prime Minister, I think all sections of the House will approve of his definite statement that the Government are in no way to be deflected from their policy by these very serious
incidents, and I think I may say that, in this determination to persevere with their policy, the Government will carry with them good will and sympathy from all sections of the House.
I think we all recognise, with regard to this Irish problem, that more delay means but greater danger. We have listened to a very interesting and important speech by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. Those of us who have been longest in this House, and who have watched his courage, his determination, his consistency, with regard to the Irish question, have always admired his deep sincerity. I think, notwithstanding that, that he has been unnecessarily gloomy in some of his anticipations. I would like to remind him, and to remind the House, that the same gloomy prognostications were made some years ago when the then Liberal Government made itself responsible for the measure of self-government granted to South Africa. I recall with very great interest the statements, to which those of us who were supporting that measure listened from time to time, from this box by the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), who is now the Lord President of the Council. But may I not ask, is there a single Member who opposed that great act of liberation, who would be prepared to question the wisdom of that policy now? I am one of those who believe that, once we get a measure, whether it be this measure or any other, that finds acceptance by the majority of the. Trish people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear. Hear!"]—Certainly, that finds acceptance by the majority of the Irish people—

Mr. R. McNElLL: A republic.

Mr. HENDERSON: The same beneficent results will follow. Tile right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) raised one point in which I am very much interested, as are all my colleagues on these benches, that is, the effect on labour legislation. I must confess that a few months ago, if the proposal for two separate Parliaments had been brought before this House, I should have looked upon that proposal from the standpoint of labour legislation with much greater apprehension than I do now. After all, we have to remember that one thing the recent Peace Conference did was to provide us with some international machinery under the League of Nations for dealing with labour questions, and the first conference
has just concluded at Washington. It may not have done all that its promoters expected, but it has made a move forward, and, so far as I am concerned, it does tone down to some extent my apprehensions with regard to the effects that might follow if we were to have two separate Parliaments in Ireland dealing with problems of labour and promoting labour legislation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will just look at that aspect of the ease and see whether it does not to some extent relieve the fears that he so eloquently put forward.
In coming to the Government scheme, there is very great difficulty in referring to such important proposals at this stage. It is essential that we should wait for the Government Bill. Until that Bill is in our possession it would be unwise for us to reach definite or final conclusions, and I think this particularly refers to the very important and elaborate financial proposals brought before the House by the Prime Minister. I am not in the slightest degree complaining of the course adopted by the Government. I think there is an advantage in their having adumbrated their proposal in this way before the Recess. I think it gives opportunity for very full and very careful inquiry. We on the Labour benches, when we heard that the Government were going to adopt this course, determined to send a deputation to Ireland. We will go with the information that has been conveyed to the House this evening, we will consult the very organisations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred in his speech, and we will in conference with them, not only in the South of Ireland, but in the North of Ireland, endeavour to ascertain exactly what their views are before we reach our final conclusions on the proposals that have been brought before us.

Mr. MOLES: We have been informed that there is a working alliance between the Nationalist party and the Labour party, and will the Labour party be committed in advance?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know of any arrangement that has been made in recent days with the Nationalist party which affects the position of the Labour party on the general principles of self-government for Ireland in the slightest degree. As the House well knows, there is not a single member in the Labour party who was not returned as an out
And out Home Ruler, and therefore if there has been any arrangement made it was not an arrangement whereby one can influence one against the other, but an arrangement whereby we can work in closer co-operation to give effect to a principle which we were all returned to this House to support. My remarks will be confined to the general principle of the scheme which the Prime Minister brought to our notice. I want to associate myself with the Leader of the Liberal party in his suggestion that he was not convinced that the Prime Minister's proposals were on right lines. I remember the last attempt which the Prime Minister made. I remember its failure. I remember how it failed. If there are those to be blamed for the failure of the last attempt with which the Prime Minister was associated it was the then Government itself, and I will tell them why. Though there was not actual agreement secured in the Convention, I have no hesitation in claiming that that Convention created a more hopeful and, I might say, a more beneficent atmosphere in Ireland than for very many years past.

Mr. MOLES: That is incorrect.

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman has the right to say that. I am expressing my opinion, and was in close touch with members of the Convention, not on one side of political opinion, but on both sides.

Mr. MOLES: Will the right lion Gentleman allow me to say that I was present at those proceedings, and therefore speak with more authority?

Mr. HENDERSON: If I were to treat the hon. Member as he is treating me, I would say he was there and is now making an ex parte statement.

Mr. MOLES: I was stating a fact.

Mr. HENDERSON: I may say that the Convention created a more beneficent and more hopeful atmosphere than had existed in Ireland for sonic time past. If there were anything which assisted in destroying that atmosphere it was the mistaken attitude of the Government with regard to the last Conscription Bill. I remember speaking on that memorable Friday when we were compelled to deal with the Clause of the Conscription Bill applying it to Ireland, that I made this statement, that if the Government enacted that Clause in the Conscription Bill, one effect it would
immediately bring about was that there would be one party in Ireland, and that party would not be a constitutional party. I leave my hon. Friend and others to judge how correct was the statement, proved, as it was, up to the hilt by the unfortunate results that immediately followed at the General Election. I think it must be accepted that the War has created, so far as this Irish problem is concerned, an entirely new psychology. After all, we remember, for we were so often told by all the Allied statesmen, that one of the primary objects of the War was to secure the freedom of small nationalities, and statesmen everywhere, including the members of the present Government, reiterated over and over again the right of people to the principle of self-determination. It seems to me, in the light of those statements, what we have to ask ourselves when we come to judge this scheme that has been put before the House to-day is, does the scheme spell self-determination for Ireland? Does it really spell self-determination for the whole of Ulster? Is Ulster to be regarded as a small nation, but is a similar claim to be denied to Ireland as a whole? We all know that Ireland has been working for long weary years for a system of self-government. Ireland has been asking for its own Parliament; but, as we have been reminded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman whoever asked for a Parliament for Ulster? Moreover, what if the doctrine of mandate is to apply? I would like to put the question: Which candidate at any election in Ireland, England, Scotland, or Wales pledged himself to the creation of two separate Parliaments in Ireland? I followed the election addresses very closely. I followed the Government's manifesto. In none of these election addresses, or in the manifesto, was there any suggestion made by any Member, not to speak of any responsible Minister, that we were to set up two Parliaments in Ireland.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: It was understood there was to be no coercion!

Mr. IRVING: What about the coercion of the rest of Ireland then?

Mr. HENDERSON: If I understand the position, all that Ulster Unionists have asked is that they should be left alone. I never knew the Ulster Unionists had asked for anything in the nature of a separate Parliament. What do we find? It is not even proposed to consult the
Ulster people by conferring upon them the right of a county vote. If it is wrong to force any other Ulster county against its will into a Dublin Parliament for the whole of Ireland, it must be equally wrong to force any Ulster county against its will into a Belfast Parliament! What are the facts in regard to Ulster. As I understand it, and I am willing to be corrected, for I have not the advantage, like hon. Gentlemen opposite, of obtaining information at first-hand, there are nine Ulster counties where there are what we may call a majority of people in favour of one Parliament for Ireland, a majority of Nationalists if you will.

Mr. MOLES: That is not correct. If my right hon. Friend wishes for the figures I will give them to him.

Mr. HENDERSON: Well, I am giving the figures that I have been able to obtain. I am told that of the nine there are five where there is a Home Rule majority and that in the other two there is between 40 and 50 per cent in favour of Irish self-government.

Brigadier-General CROFT: What about the other two counties?

Mr. HENDERSON: I admitted a majority against. That is self-evident, or I should have quoted figures.

Mr. MOLES: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in four counties, not two, there is an overwhelming majority of Unionists, and it is from these that the twenty-three Unionist Members were returned for the whole of the Province. There are 886,000 Protestants and 669,000 Roman Catholics. That is the position.

Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to deal with the four counties—

Mr. MOLES: As long as you deal correctly.

Mr. HENDERSON: I dealt with five, and then was going on to say that in two counties there was a minority which was as large as 40 per cent. I left the other two counties alone, because I quite realise that Belfast contains an overwhelming majority against any measure of self-government for their county. It seems to me the scheme, as it has been put before us, conflicts with the sincere aspirations of the great majority of the Irish people for self-government. At best these proposals.
can only be regarded as a half-hearted and unsatisfying compromise which goes no distance to meet the claims that have been stated over and over again in this House, and I believe have obtained a majority of electors at successive elections amongst the Irish people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rather elided my right hon. Friend who spoke from these benches about not having made any suggestion. I want to take the opportunity to put forward briefly one or two courses which I think were open to the Government.
The Government, I think, might have produced a scheme of what is usually described as Dominion Home Rule minus the Army and Navy, but giving the respective counties what is known as county option. The second course is what I would have preferred. We have been told that the Home Rule Act is on the Statute Book, and must come into operation, unless some new course is laid down by Parliament. What might have been done was this the Government might have summoned an Irish Parliament under that Act. They might have left to that Parliament the working out of its own constitution. I do not think it would have taken very long. I believe that the new circumstances that have arisen as a result of the War, especially the financial position, in which proposals could have been made which, probably, would have found acceptance with a majority of the Irish people. I think that that would have been a method which would not only have commended itself to Ireland, but would have commended itself to those who are watching, not only in our overseas Dominions but in the United States, to see what course the British people, who have talked so much about self-government and self-determination, were likely to adopt. At any rate, this would have been the nearest approach to self-determination. May I remind the House that this remedy has never yet been tried? In my opinion, when it is tried, many of the difficulties which have been brought before us will disappear; in fact, I am convinced that not a few of the dangers will also disappear.
We on the Labour benches, may I say in conclusion, are exceedingly anxious to assist the Government all we can to terminate the long night of and misunderstanding that has dominated the life of the Irish nation. We shall be told that the Bill does that. We used to be told
in the early days that there was one school of British political thought which represented, what Mr. Gladstone called "Trust in the people qualified by prudence; "and that the other school of British political thought represented the opposite principle: "Mistrust of the people qualified by fear." We have never yet trusted the Irish people, even if our trust was qualified by prudence. We have shown our mistrust of the Irish people over and over again. From the old days, possibly long before, of the Land League agitation, right on until now, some of us are almost compelled to believe that—and recent evidence would seem to bear it out—that we are getting right back to the worst form of mistrust and government by fear. We were urged by the Prime Minister against any policy of recrimination.
We do not want to recriminate. But we have heard a great deal as to the demand for Irish independence and an Irish republic. That demand is the inevitable result of the opposition to a reasoned measure of self-government. Whilst we may not desire to recriminate we must state emphatically that if the demand has grown in. this respect the responsibility for that increased demand must rest with those who have so resolutely resisted the claim of the Irish mission to freedom. Am I not right in saying these proposals in many parts of Ireland will be regarded as a triumph for the dictatorship of the minority? These are days in which we are hearing much of the dictatorship of the minority. I am as much opposed to a dictatorship of a minority in Ireland as I am in Russia, because I think it is totally inconsistent with the principles of sound and real democracy. Some of us, whilst we will analyse these proposals and give the Government scheme the most careful consideration possible, whilst we are prepared to confer with those in Ireland, the members of our own trade unions, I must say here in the name of the British Labour party that we have not lost our faith in the principles of self-government or in the principles of self-determination, and when the time for our final test comes, so far as our attitude to these proposals is concerned, that test will be made in harmony with the fundamental principles to which I have referred.

Brigadier-General CROFT: The speech which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has just made renders it a little difficult for hon. Members who had
listened to him to understand exactly whether he approved of the Prime Minister's proposal or was against it. The right hon. Gentleman said there were several fundamental objections, but there seemed to be a glimmer of hope at the end of his speech that he was going to support these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that there was no mandate for two Houses of Parliament being established in Ireland. I think it is necessary that we should know whether the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) is in favour of two Parliaments for Ireland. Will he answer that question? I invite an answer as to whether he is prepared to go on with Home Rule without granting two Parliaments to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to say "Yes" or "No" to that question, and it is an important matter in view of the fact that it was practically agreed in the last Parliament during the War that whatever happened in the future there was to be no coercion of Ulster, and if the right lion. Gentleman does not accept that view he is placing the Labour party definitely on the side of those who wish to coerce Ulster on this question.
The right lion Gentleman, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), told us that the present happenings in Ireland were largely due to the five years blundering which we had recently passed through. I should lake to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Asquith was Prime Minister three of those years, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman refers to incidents which happened in Ireland under Mr. Asquith. We have heard a great deal too little about those blunders and a great deal too little about what Britain has done for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles also said that a complete change had come over Ireland as a result of Conscription. I remember Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman once told some distinguished politician that they should cease this foolery, and anybody who claims that the position of Ireland is worse on account of the proposal for Conscription—because it was never applied to Ireland—or who says the position is any worse than at the time of the rebellion is making an exaggeration.
The right lion. Gentleman concluded by an eloquent appeal which had nothing to do with the facts. He asked why we
could not do for Ireland what we had done for Canada, Australia and South Africa. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Henderson), as I would also like to have reminded the Leader of the Liberal party (Sir D. Maclean) if he had been present, that we had nothing to do with those constitutions. The people themselves paved the way by unity in Canada, Australia and South Africa. The people there were consenting parties, and you had agreement among them, and the result there was that we built up those great dominions and commonwealths. Therefore, it is hardly for us to make any comparison between South Africa on the one hand, where you had Britain and Boer consenting, with Ireland where unhappily you have a complete cleavage, which has been admitted in the discussions in this House by those who do not desire a complete in Ireland. I tabled a Motion along with the hon. Member for Walsall because it seemed to us desirable in view of what had been said in the Press that we really should face facts in this House.
Although everyone would desire to see some solution of the Trish question I do feel that it is the duty of every single individual Member of this House not to allow this occasion to pass without saying what his faith is and whether he feels strongly upon this point. The sole reason I have intervened is because the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State for India, who introduced momentous reforms recently, which were passed rapidly through the House, turned upon hon. Members of this House, who ventured to criticise that measure practically as if they were pickpockets, because they had not protested against the measure earlier. Before dealing with the reasons why there are great dangers in the Prime Minister's proposal, I ask the House to run back through recent history. In 1906 Ireland was more happy, content and free from crime than she had been in her history. The law was administered and it was obeyed, and those who had the privilege of being in Ireland in 1904–1905 and 1906 will bear witness to the fact that there was no discontent or agitation and it is since that date that we have seen a change.
I need not argue the point because my principal witness would be Mr. Augustine Birrell (who himself said that when he was Chief Secretary). Since1906 there has been a weakening of administration in Ireland
and that country has once more passed from settlement and content to political agitation. Then came the decision of the Government which held office prior to the War to legislate, and with all due respect to the right hon Gentleman the Member for Widnes, the two elections of 1910, there was no mandate whatever on the subject of Home Rule. The matter was completely left out of the speeches of all the leading Gentlemen who at that time were seeking re-election in order to carry out their proposals concerning the Veto Bill and the People's Budget. Home Rule was practically unmentioned, and I for one, believing in the union of the United Kingdom, venture to think that the legislation, therefore, was passed through without any great decision of the people of this country.
The Bill, however, went through, and we were suddenly faced with a perilous position which involved the coercion of Ulster. That was in 1914. We were faced with what certainly looked like civil war, and many Unionists along with many Liberals joined together to see if they could arrive at some federal solution which would prevent that disaster. If I may be forgiven for mentioning a personal matter, I myself actually took a leading part in that work, and with our lamented colleague, Sir Mark Sykes, was one of the joint secretaries of a committee working on those lines. What were our views? Speaking for myself, while opposed to any movement which might have the effect of weakening the real union, I was, in order to prevent the coercion of Ulster, prepared to submit to some proposals which, without affecting the sovereign powers of Government, might give some form of self-government to Ireland. There has been a tremendous lot of miscalculation in the Press lately as to what a federal solution means. After all, a federal solution is compatible with union, but the Dominion solution would be absolutely destructive of the union. We were faced with civil war, and all of us who had watched the European situation and who realised that the Kiel Canal was complete and that in the opinion of many Germans her time had come to strike, were prepared to do everything in our power to try and bring about a settlement of this question. I mention that to show that I was not a bigot and that I and a large number of those who worked in the same cause, rather than being extremists, were actually workers for a
settlement. Then came the War. Seeing the way that Mr. John Redmond and his immediate followers rallied at that time to the cause of civilisation, my views were not altered, and, had he survived and had he and his supporters remained in control of the political machine in Ireland, I should still adhere to those federal views that. I held in 1914. Unfortunately, that was not to be. Every constitutional Nationalist in the South and West of Ireland, with two or three exceptions, was defeated at the time of the General Election. I confess that I was too optimistic. I had hoped that the Constitutional movement was a more permanent power in Ireland. One is forced to the conclusion that things were not quite what one had hoped. In spite of the fact that the Home Rule Bill hail passed and was on the Statute Book, the extremists gained control of the political machine, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, they were not on the side of the Empire.
I do not think that any good cause is served by referring to the story of the Rebellion of that Easter week, and of the stab in the back that was given at that time. The Government, however, ought to have learned a lesson from what occurred in Ireland in those days. Apparently, they dared not act with any firmness at that time. I do not want to refer to the proceedings of Mr. Asquith, who somehow managed to convince ail parties in Ireland that the Government at that time were not prepared to be firm. They presented the blind eye to affairs that were going on in Ireland, and the rebels were released and again were able to start their campaign of terrorism in Ireland. Worse than that, the Government of that-day made no attempt to stop the latent rebellion that was going on. Mr. De Valera escaped from an English prison and, instead of being rearrested and made to complete his sentence, he was permitted by His Majesty's Government to go all through Ireland proclaiming himself President of an Irish republic. I remember the great wrath displayed in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, and the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes), representing the Labour party, moved the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duneairn Division (Sir E. Carson). They complained that he had reiterated a
speech which he had made before the War, and in which he laid it down that if he and his friends were deprived of the protoction of the Imperial Parliament they would take steps to protect themselves. He had said it so often before that it was rather extraordinary that this notice should have been taken of the speech. Great umbrage was taken at that hypothetical threat. The same right hon. Gentlemen and their supporters, however, have taken no notice whatever, nor have they made any attempt to move the Adjournment of the House on account of the actual case of Mr. De Valera, who has proclaimed himself President of th Irish Republic, who is therefore engaged in open rebellion, and who, I should imagine, although I am not a lawyer, long since ought to have been arrested for high treason. I do not know what is the reason. Perhaps it may be that Mr. De Valera has never opposed the Liberal party in this House as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Duncairn Division.
The important fact is that all power in Nationalist Ireland has passed from those who recognise constitutional means of gaining their ends to the forces of revolution and of separation. My information from Ireland is that things are very much worse than either the Chief Secretary or the Government would have us believe. There is a very large number of men of a dangerous character in Dublin, not just a few assassins, but probably hundreds, and it may be thousands, who are bent on destroying property and making mischief if they can. It is no good this House offering honeyed words to the Sinn Feiners or having any make-belief with regard to this question. My honest opinion is that no legislation for Home Rule can have the slightest effect upon the Sinn Feiners. You might as well offer a pill to Vesuvius as a Bill to the Sinn Feiners. Yet the Prime Minister comes down here in order to propose this new measure. I regret exceedingly, owing to the extreme sweet reason of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division, even to have to indicate that one does not approve, but I would urge the House to face facts. This is no new question. Great principles ire involved, and it is our duty to say what we think is right. My opinion is that we should get rid of sentiment, which is so
often dangerous, and that we should get rid of emotion, which in Governments is nearly always disastrous. If Governments allow their judgment to be guided by the emotions of the moment they are likely to get into trouble. Probably there are at least 100 men in this House who genuinely believe that great wrongs have been done to Ireland, though they know no more about Ireland than about India. The fact remains that they believe that there are always wrongs which this country is inflicting on Ireland. We might be the guilty parties! We heard the Prime Minister say that crimes had been committed on both sides. What crime has this House committed in Ireland for the last 50 years? If we examine the question we will find that Ireland has always had preference. We have only to look at legislation and see how favourably Ireland has been treated by the Imperial Parliament. In the matter of licensing legislation Ireland has always been excluded from restrictions imposed in this country. During the War Ireland was excluded from. the restrictions then laid down here. With regard to Conscription, although we are told that the mere talk of it in this House had disastrous effects in Ireland, Ireland was contracted out of that part of the duty of citizenship. With regard to foodstuff during the War when the real test was made Ireland got preference; the people were not rationed, but were allowed to live in the lap of luxury. I venture to say that Ireland has been the spoilt darling of the Empire. There is no country in the whole of Europe which can show so few of the real sears of war. The generosity of Great Britain to Ireland has been absolutely unequalled, at any rate during the last 30 years—unequalled in the history of any country in the world. Let us therefore come down from these imaginary grievances to real solid earth.
10.0 P.M.
What is going to happen if we are carried away by our emotions at the present time? I am in touch with numerous men who believe in Home Rule as the ultimate solution of the Irish question—men who reside in this country, and not one of them holds that this is the hour when we should hand over their destinies to these forces in Ireland. No Parliament that is established in Dublin with the best will in the world can prevent it being Sinn Fein. If such a Parliament is established, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has told us that one of two things will happen. Either the Sinn Fein members will absent
themselves from the Dublin Parliament, and then the government of the South and West of Ireland will be left to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond)with his corporal's guard—and nobody will suggest that these three or four men could govern Ireland, when there are some sixty or seventy Sinn Fein members absent from its Parliament. Therefore, our self-deception then would be complete and you would have utter chaos. The second alternative is that the Sinn Fein members will attend the Dublin Parliament, and it is not indisputable that on the very day that Parliament meets, the Sinn Fein members will declare that it is the. Parliament of the Republic? Just consider what that means. It means that the revolution will be real, and although for the moment the Government may retain the control of the purse, the police will pass under the power of the Parliament, and you will have vested these declared republicans with an authority which they do not possess at the present time and never can possess unless we are going to give this Parliament to their care. Therefore, it seems to me that 10.0 P.M. this organisation, although we say we are going to give securities to the minority, will be placed in a position to carry on a campaign of boycott and terrorism, and the loyalists in Ireland will be in danger either of being driven out of the country or of being exterminated. Just consider the ideas actuating these people. I believe, if we are going to establish a Sinn Fein Parliament in Dublin, you will be establishing the authority of a Bolshevist regime in Ireland. What are the motives of the Prime Minister in producing this plan here this evening? We all know there was a pledge by the Liberal Government which ceased to exist soon after the commencement of the War, to the Nationalist Members of this House, that they would go on with their Home Rule legislation and that to that pledge the Prime Minister was a party. But I submit it is impossible for the Prime Minister to redeem a pledge to a party which no longer exists. That is clear on the face of it. Further than that, we have the fact that Sinn Fein has repudiated any such form of Home Rule and that cannot be the reason for bringing in this Bill. There must be some other reason, and I venture to think it is on account of the extraordinary mix tip of words we have had ever since the Prime Minister and President Wilson were.
staying so long together in Paris. The whole of the Peace Treaty, as we know, was subordinated to the Fourteen Points of the President. Unhappily the President at the present time is not able to deliver the goods which were promised in the Fourteen Points, and the consequence is that the foundations of the Peace Treaty are affected. If there was a bargain of any kind between the Prime Minister and President Wilson with regard to Ireland, whether it was a proper or improper bargain, I submit it is no longer binding because, unfortunately, the other party to the bargain is not in a position to carry out his side of it.
The right hon. Member for Widnes introduced once more those magic words "self-determination"which may yet cause the greatest trouble in the world because of the very looseness with which it is interpreted. If we had self-determination we might ask certain Members to remove themselves from this House, but that is impossible; we have always to put up with them. I want to submit to those who are great believers in self-determination that really we ought not to go too far with this question. The opinions of the people of the United States of America are very different to those of the people of Ireland on this subject. In the frightful struggle between the North and the South, actually there were more men killed in that civil war—especially in proportion to the population—than we lost in killed in the whole of the Great War which has just concluded. Why were those lives sacrificed? Simply to compel one part of that Continent to remain with the other part from which it desired to secede. I venture to think that if Virginia to-morrow was to attempt to set up an independent Republic, which is unthinkable, or even to claim Dominion Home Rule, collecting her own taxes and exercising all those other powers which are exercised by the Dominion of Canada, President Wilson would go to war against them, and I believe, too, he would be supported by the whole country. If it was so essential to the United States to incur all that bloodshed in order to keep those two half-Continents together, how much more essential is it in the case of these islands which are so close together, for us to preserve our union intact? We want to go very carefully on this question; but day after day we are seeing the terrible crimes which are taking place in Ireland, and if we did not regard life so
cheaply now, after the holocaust of the world War, this country would have been roused to a great storm of fury over the murder of those men whose only crime is that they are wearing the uniform which represents the authority of this House in Ireland. We have even seen recently this terrible attack on the representative of His Majesty, and I noticed this remarkable statement in a newspaper, one of the Government Press, that I was reading on Saturday: "Had the attempt proved fatal the Home Rule Bill would have been dropped, but happily it failed, and the Government can go on with the Bill." That is a very extraordinary line of reasoning, for it means that if the shooting is straight no Home Rule Bill can be carried, but if it lacks proficiency and only the blood of a personal attendant sitting within two feet of the object of the attack is shed, then you can go on with the Bill. It is very difficult to understand these niceties of inches in this question. The fact remains that the attempt was made and a most desperate attempt at that, and it ix as made by the creatures of the system to whose charge it is deliberately suggested that we should hand over a Parliament in Dublin.
I do not want to press the Chief Secretary, but I would ask him this: la this movement connected with Sinn Fein or is it not, and is it not a fact that this Parliament is bound to be a Sinn Fein Parliament and therefore would be actuated very likely by precisely similar ideas? I believe, and I believe the majority of Members of this House would agree, that the only way to encourage that kind of thing is to show fear, and most reluctantly I believe the Prime Minister is not quite aware of the psychology of the Irish people when he says that they will not regard this measure as a sign of weakness. I believe you will have to make a very different argument for the people of Ireland. I bad a forebear who happened to be Lieutenant-Governor of Ireland in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and he placed on record this, that the Irish were a very turbulent people, but if you were only just and firm with them you found they were most reasonable on every occasion. I cannot help thinking that there are political reasons in bringing this proposal before the House this evening which really do not fit the facts. I have even heard it said by one or two hon. Gentlemen in the smoking room, "Let us bring in a Bill of
some sort. We know it will be turned down, but we can at any rate show the people of the United States of America that we made an attempt." Let us not go in for that kind of opportunism, which does us no good in the long run. I am sorry to see the Unionist party are taking such very little interest in this question of the Union; the Unionist leaders, unfortunately, have been conspicuous by their absence ever since the Prime Minister sat down. The Nationalist party also should have been interested in this measure, and perhaps their absence proves that it is stillborn.

Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Where are the National Party?

Brigadier-General CROFT: They are all coming in large numbers at the next election, as some hon. Members will discover in their own constituencies. The recent happenings which have been going on during the War have absolutely proved up to the hilt the case which the right hon. Gentlemen used to advance to those of us who sat at their feet in days gone by, and I think they might remember that their trusteeship, represented in the Unionist party on that bench, emanates from their glorious defence of the Union.
Are they now going to desert their cause and their principles and their friends, merely because they have been proved overwhelmingly right by the claims which they have ever put forward in the past? Is it that they are suffering under a hypnotism from which they cannot free themselves If the Leader of the House were here I should ask him if the great Welsh Svengali is forcing him and his fellow Trilby's, the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), and the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) to consent to sing this Radical, Home Rule proposal, quite unconsciously, under his spell-binding influence. The right hen. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) is present, and perhaps he can tell me whether they are under the effects of this hypnotism at the present time, and where the Unionist Leaders stand on this question? The Leader of the Unionist party was speaking at Liverpool a few days ago, and said he was going to stay in the Coalition just so long as any principle which he regarded as vital was not violated. I am entitled to ask the Leaders of the Unionist party whether they are for or against the Union. I am not ashamed
to say that if the late Mr. John Redmond was controlling the political situation in Ireland at the present time, with those who thought with him, I would do everything in my power, after his action in the War, to see that the principles which the Prime Minister set forth this afternoon, were enacted in a measure in order to establish a Parliament in Dublin and a Parliament in Belfast. But that is not the situation to-day, and we are blinding ourselves to the facts if we think that it is.
The history of the War has proved that the Unionist party's faith as it was known in the past has, unhappily, proved a correct faith. It is the duty of this House to see that so long as this crime is going on in Ireland there is no talk of any faltering in any form. We ought to give every support to the Executive and especially to the Chief Secretary, who, although I differ from him on a great many questions, has shown the greatest courage and the greatest sincerity ever since he undertook that office. I would ask those who used to belong to the Unionist party—I am afraid I am about the only Unionist left—why they are deserting their old principles, when all the arguments they ever put before their country in the past have in reality been borne out by the War, and when all the teaching of history and of common sense demand that we should stand by that Union which has proved the safeguard of our land, and we ought to do everything in our power to strengthen it by wise administration and by a firm holding up of justice in Ireland. Those of us who have seen what has happened during the War must realise that the Union which alone made this country safe in the past can alone keep it safe in the future, and that any experiment of this kind, which is merely in order to camouflage the situation, and which can lead to no real and permanent peace, is doing no good turn either for England or Ireland. It is our duty to do everything in our power to see that law and order is carried out, and that only if we can get all parties in Ireland to consent to come together into some scheme are we justified in breaking up the Union which has proved a bulwark against our enemies.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Like every other speaker who has preceded me, I fully associate myself with the horror that has been expressed at the outrage against Lord French, and still more with the disgust at the murder of the
unfortunate policeman. It is part of the tragedy of Ireland that a section of the population, driven to desperation by what they consider unjust government, commit some act which hampers those who are working for a juster system of government. Coercion leads to crime and crime to coercion. Coercion plays into the hands of the criminal and the criminal into the hands of coercion. But the fact that these outrages have taken place ought not to prevent us attempting to probe to the root of the difficulty, and if we do so find that though Ireland is governed by a Liberal Prime Minister and Chief Secretary, and the Government is composed of a great many Liberals, Ireland is not governed at present on Liberal principles but on the principles of FitzGibbon, Earl of Clare. FitzGibbon, believed thoroughly that the majority of the Irish people were incurably bad, and, therefore, the minority being good, Ireland should be governed in the interests of the minority. The present Government thoroughly believes in minority government, and I am afraid it is minority government which has inspired the speech and the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister. These proposals are inspired by a thorough distrust of the majority of the Irish people. It is a thoroughly unsound and artificial proposal, and though I wish it well and hope it, will be accepted by the Irish people, I fear there is very little chance of it, and I am very much afraid that the last state of Ireland will be worse than the first.
The reason why we have always failed to solve the problem of Irish discontent is that we have never yet approached the Irish problem in the spirit of the British constitution, which is that the majority should rule, and it is in that spirit that we have solved all our Imperial problems. We have solved the South African, the Canadian and the Australian problem. Before the days of Lord Durham there was exactly the same discontent in Canada, exactly the same racial animosities as prevail to-day in Ireland. Canada was governed in the interests of a minority. For instance, in lower Canada, although the Representative Assembly was entirely French, the executive council was a nominated council and was entirely British. The result was that there was violent discontent and violent racial animosities, and the British minority made exactly the same claim to the monopoly of loyalty as the people of Ulster do at
present, and made exactly the same charges of disloyalty against the French. A step was taken in tile right direction when Lord Elgin, who was Governor-General, in the spirit of the Durham Report, granted responsible government to the Canadians. But he made the mistake, on the recommendation of Lord Durham, of uniting the two provinces under one Parliament, and it was not until 1867 that the Canadians themselves solved their own problem. The Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon said that the Canadian problem was solved by the creation of two provincial assemblies. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not wish to mislead the House, but that is not in accordance with the facts. The Canadian problem was not solved by the creation of two provincial parliaments. The Canadian problem was solved by the creation of the Dominion Parliament, an all-Canadian parliament, a Canadian parliament which gave all creeds and all races in Canada the opportunity of expressing their nationality. Provincial parliaments were set up in which the minor subjects of legislation were accorded, but the essential part of the Canadian settlement was that the Canadian people solved their own problem.
I submit that the only way to solve the Irish problem is to follow strictly the Canadian precedent, to create an all-Irish Parliament and let the Irish people solve their own problem. It may be that separation is the only solution. But if, separation is going to be accepted by the Irish people, separation can only be accepted when the Irish people themselves come to the conclusion that separation is the only way out of the difficulty. I cannot help thinking that the Canadian precedent is a most hopeful precedent. Let there be an all-Irish Parliament to which all the major subjects of legislation should be accorded, and let there be strictly subordinate Parliaments in North and South to which minor subjects of legislation should be accorded. If the Canadian settlement removed racial animosities I think that there is every reason to hope that the removal of an unjust and thoroughly bad old government will smooth away racial animosities in Ireland. Personally I cannot help thinking that we are to a very large extent responsible for the racial animosities in Ireland. The hatred between North and South, to a very large extent, is the effect of bad government.
Remove that bad government and racial animosities will die away. It is exactly the same with crime. We must clear our minds of a great deal of cant with regard to crime. Personally I believe Ireland to be one of the most crimeless countries in Europe. I ask hon. Members, was there any crime in Ireland in 1914 when the Irish people were hoping to get Dome Rule? There was not, and nobody can say that there was. The crime that is existing in Ireland now is the result of Ireland being governed by red hats, by tanks, and by men in steel helmets. If you remove the tanks, the red hats and the steel helmets, and give Ireland the opportunity of governing itself, crime in Ireland will die away at once. It was Lord Sherbourne who said, "We govern people. We do not understand them. We do not attempt to understand them." All that the Irish people ask is that they shall be treated as normal human beings. There is nothing abnormal about the Irish people or about the Irish question. If Ireland is governed in the interests of the majority, she will behave exactly the same as every other Government responsible to the people.

Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to enter into the merits of the proposals put before the House by the Prime Minister. I should like to say one thing with regard to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member (Brigadier-General Croft), that I for one should not be at all afraid if the Parliament of the South of Ireland were to return, initially, persons of a Sinn Fein persuasion. Let me refer to one subject—forestry. It is a fact that it is the one party, they are the first set of men, who have done anything effective in regard to that matter. If Sinn Fein should continue to produce people who are really keen and anxious and practical on matters of real Irish development, surely it would be a good sign and not a bad sign. It reminds me of what was once said by a famous Irish ecclesiastic, namely, that there are certain people who, when the stream runs dry see no necessity for building a bridge, and when the stream runs high say it is impossible to build a bridge. The fact that there is unrest in Ireland is no reason why we should not do our very best to settle that; question. If, whenever there is any disturbance in the country we are to hold cur hands and to say that it is no responsibility of ours, then this question will never be
settled. It seems to me that there are certain important things to consider if you try to look forward to next year and to envisage the passage of a Bill. The first is that the work of the Government and of the House on the Bill should as soon as possible be divorced from the influences of Irish administration. There is a prevalent opinion.—I dare say it is not justified—that there are in the Government two currants of opinion—that one would like to go as far as the Prime Minister went in a liberal grant of self-government to Ireland, and that the other is in favour of something like a return to years of firm government, and so on. The sooner the Bill can be removed from that atmosphere of suspicion the better. Then there is the question that before we really embark on legislation it would be well, if we could, to give the parties interested a chance of being heard. The axiom upon which the prime Minister spoke is, after all, a very considerable axiom. It was this because by trying to force union you have created disunion, therefore by forcing disunion you may create union. There are many doubtful points in that doctrine, and it needs to be very carefully examined. Surely it would be a good thing, although the Shin Fein members have refused in this House, if they could come and give their views as to what they think would be the position if the ideal of complete independence which they are now advocating were put into practical form?
If we legislate, we ought to legislate with all the facts before us, and all the cards of every party or section on the table, if we possibly can have them there. Particularly I would like to go into this doctrine, which seems to be inherent, implicit, in the solution that the Prime Minister puts before us, namely, that Ulster should have a claim to keep Ireland divided. Personally, like other English Members of Parliament, I have only had a limited experience of Irishmen, but it has always seemed to me that the two nations, as they are called, in Ireland, are very much nearer together in their sentiment, in their out look on life, on politics, and on everything else, than either of them is to any other nation or to us on this side of the Channel. Therefore, it seems to me that we ought to examine things very carefully, if we can, before we consent to a system of initial division of these people, Who, after all, are all Irishmen and are proud of it, and rightly proud of it. I think it is possible that the united wisdom
of the House of Commons, as expressed through this Parliament, may perhaps be better in finding a permanent solution of this question than the united—or perhaps should say the divided—wisdom of the Government. Therefore, I suggest that the Government should bring on the First and Second Readings of their Bill as early as possible in the forthcoming Session, and should then refer the Bill, as was done in the ease of the India Bill, to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. The procedure before the Joint Select Committee of both Houses is interesting. First of all, if the precedent of the India Bill is followed, anyone interested is asked to give evidence, and that evidence is given in public. Secondly, there is only one Report; you cannot have a Report and a Minority Report, so that you would not risk arriving at a deadlock by having the Committee equally divided, or anything of tht kind. Thirdly, you may by that procedure, if the matter were thoroughly threshed out, avoid the necessity of weeks, or even months, of detailed work on the floor of this House, which, probably, is not the best place for shaping the details of a great settlement. Fourthly, there is, of course, in that procedure, the best chance of avoiding what has wrecked more Home Rule Bills than one in the past, namely, disagreement between the two Houses. It would be fatal if, at this stage, we were again to be checked and prevented from making any progress by a disagreement between the two Houses, ashes happened in the past. The procedure which I suggest undoubtedly did an enormous amount. of good in the case of the India Bill, in clearing the air and making every party to what, I think, is now almost generally regarded as a great settlement, feel that they had a real chance of expressing their views before a really responsible body representing both Houses of Parliament.
Let us remember that the Government has talked rather big about their determination to have all sorts of Bills put forward in the early days of the next Session. They are already pledged to a considerable legislative programme, but it does not work that way. You perhaps have a few weeks when the Address has been passed, and so on, when you can get the First and Second Readings of one or two big Bills, but then you are tied to many weeks when practically nothing but financial business can be done. If the Government were to get the First and Second
Readings of this Bill quite early in the Session, and then refer it to a Select Committee, no time would really be lost. You cannot really get on with the details of a Bill that has to be dealt with in this House until well on into May or June. At any rate, I commend the suggestion to the serious attention of the Government, because I believe that a Bill which represented the considered judgment of the House, threshed out in public before such a Select Committee, would command more confidence, and would be likely to meet with more success, than even the very best Bill that the Government could put before us without such procedure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn has answered to the test which Solomon applied in the case of the two women and the child that they both claimed, and has proved himself to be not a real lover of his country. This Irish question is much more than a British question to-day. It is a great European question. It is not that we would tolerate interference on the part of other European countries in the settlement of our own affairs, but at the present time we have been reduced to such an impasse by the selfishness and the imperialisms of nations big and little, old and new, late enemies and late friends, that a lead is now needed from some country, and more especially from this country, to lead them away from it. We have not yet given that lead. We to-day are begging and imploring the small nationalities in Europe to be a little unselfish, to settle their differences by consent and to drop a little of their exaggerated irredentism's in order that we may save the lives of many hundred thousands of people, not only during this winter but in the years to come because of wars which will break out unless a. really clean settlement is made to-day in Europe. When we suggest—say to the Poles—that they should not claim the whole of Eastern Galicia, or to the Czecho-Slovaks that they should not fight for Teschen, or to the Italians that they should not claim more than their just dues on the shores of the Adriatic, they can say to us, "What have you done in your own concerns Have you shown yourselves to be unselfish in any way? "It is from that point of view that I direct attention to the speech made by the Prime Minister to-day. It was very disappointing, hesitating and ungenerous.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: What about the speeches from your side of the House?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg the Noble Lord's pardon. I heard his speech with the greatest of interest arid welcomed his sentiments, as I always have done ever since I entered this House. The strategical position was dragged up again from the sterile debates in the 'eighties. That position is hopelessly exaggerated. The Prime Minister was very indignant the other day when he was twitted by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. (Lord R. Cecil) with being, or with some members of the Government being, lukewarm over the League of Nations. Had the right hon. Gentleman thought for one second of the League of Nations before making the speech he delivered this afternoon? Are we arming ourselves for another war? Have we to consider what hostile forces there may be in the four corners of the world and over the seven seas in the coining years? What will be more important than the air route across the Atlantic will be the air routes to the East. The air routes from London to Moscow or Delhi will he across half a dozen countries. Each of them, if hostile, could cut our air routes in the event of civil war in Europe. Are we to try to control the foreign policy of all Europe, because that is what it amounts to if we are to be frightened from granting a measure of Home Rule to Ireland, because of the possibility of having a hostile country on our flank in Ireland in the event of another war? I will ask one question. Will the two Parliaments that are to be set up in Ireland be represented, as our Dominions will be, en the Assembly of the League of Na lions? That is of great importance, because it means the success or failure of the whole scheme.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If only these Irish were nice. sad. sober, sensible and businesslike Englishmen. what a perfect Bill this would be! Unfortunately they are Irish, therefore we have to consider whether the Irish people themselves will accept this measure. Everyone in this House knows perfectly well that the Irish people to-day will not accept this measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) was perfectly right. You will get Sinn Feiners elected in an overwhelming body to that new Dublin Parliament, and these Sinn Feiners
will refuse to take the oath. There will immediately be trouble. The Irish people are riot like the English people. They do not wish to accept a businesslike settlement. They have made up their minds what they want, and will not be content with anything else. It is no use our bringing forward the most ideal scheme of Home Rule so long as even the constitutional Irish party will not attend the House to hear it propounded. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) has suggested putting this Bill before a mint Select Committee as was done in the case of the India Bill. Does he really imagine De Valera would come over here in Order to give evidence, and can he picture De Valera's frame of mind after he had peen cross-examined for half-an-hour by the right hon. Member for Camborne? Obviously the Irish people are not a practical people. They are not a people who like to be told what is good for them. They have told us what they want, and that is to cut themselves loose from the Government here. I think it is our duty here to be quite frank on this Irish question and make up oar individual minds what is to be done. I have made up my mind long ago, and although it may not please Irishmen or Ulstermen, or my Constituents, I am going to state it. I think we ought immediately to hold a plebiscite In Ireland as to whether each individual will prefer secession or to remain attached to the British Empire. I would make that proposal to Ireland, and at the same time to President Wilson, and ask President Wilson to see that the plebiscite was stated in a fair way, exactly in the same way as we are now sending our troops to decide as to the plebiscite in Silesia or Dantzig. I would go further and say to the President that we are content to allow him to appoint a Commission to decide. I would ask him to appoint a Commission to consider the financial obligations of the two countries, and I do that, not because I want to see the Irish secede, but because I am perfectly certain that the only way to re-establish good relations between the Irish and the English is to give them what they want, and then let them see how inconvenient it is. We know perfectly well that the whole of South, East and West of Ireland depends on its exports to this country, and first give them what they ask, and let them see we are not their enemies, and then we may hope to see the British Empire reestablished as a free commonwealth of
co-operating countries. We know perfectly well that is the right thing. All our instincts tell us that the British Empire has been made strong by giving subordinate countries their liberty, and then they back you up. That, I believe, would be the best solution of the Irish problem, and I believe that the Prime Minister himself will be forced to that solution, even when he has carried this Bill into law, as it is merely following the right solution, while it is creating more friction, more bloodshed, more coercion and more crime to postpone the day when we shall have to come to that solution.

AMRITSAR DISTURBANCES.

I rose because I wanted to raise a question which is different from the Irish question in locality, but very similar to it in general characteristics.

I want to raise the question of the Amritsar massacre, and the duty of this country towards India in that respect. The, details of that massacre are, unfortunately, too well known to us. The English Press, with few exceptions, has taken the English view of the matter. The whole country has been horrified at what took place. Let me remind the House of what took place, and not from hearsay, but on the evidence given by the principal actor. Here inquiry will result in some trivial action. The thing must be put right. What happened? There was a religious festival and thousands of Punjaubis had gone into Amritsar. The British officials were anxious, and the Deputy Commissioner on 9th April surrounded the notorious Dr. Satyafal and Kitchlew and carried them off. The news got about and their followers sent a massed deputation to the Deputy-Commissioner demanding their release. The deputation was stopped, apparently by troops; it was only armed with sticks and as a result the troops fired and shot some of the demonstrators. Speeches were made over the bodies, and the mob turned and murdered three Englishmen and beat a lady. No one would excuse riots of that sort. On the evening of the 10th, General Dyer arrived at Amritsar, and the Deputy-Commissioner handed over the civil power to him. He issued a proclamation by word of mouth that no meetings should be held. Two days later, after there had been no sort of riot, nor murder, General Dyer heard that a meeting was to be held at the Jallianwala Bagh He proceeded there
with about fifty troops, half British, half Indian, and a certain number of Ghurkas, armed with their kukris. The Jallianwala Bagh is an open space, half a mile square which has one entry wide enough for three persons. The troops got in and lined up on a mound of debris. The walls, seven feet high, and the surrounding houses enclosed the people. There were, too, three alleys through which the people might have been able to pass. Within thirty seconds of the troops getting in, General Dyer gave orders to fire, and the crowd of people, estimated at anything from 5,000 to 20,000, who were sitting on the ground peacefully listening to the mob oratory, were fired on. The result of the troops' fire into the mass of people we do not know. But we do know that Dyer's own estimate of the casualties resulting from ten minutes continual individual firing, was 400 to 500 killed and 1,500 wounded. What were the people to do They could not escape. They were people who had not offered any violence and who had not been warned. These people were shot down. After ten minutes the ammunition was exhausted and the troops marched off, and they left 1,500 wounded there. There were men lying there for two days, dying of thirst, eating the ground, bleeding to death and nobody to look after them. Those relations who lived near came and carried away some of the wounded from among the heap of dead and dying, but the unfortunate country people died there miserably of their wounds. This is what is done in 1919 in British India. An English sportsman would take any amount of trouble or time to see that a wounded partridge was put out of its misery, but these wounded people were lying there for two days dying slowly. Think what this means. There has never been anything like it before in English history, and not in the whole of our relations with India has there ever been anything of this magnitude before. If you are to find anything so damning to the British reputation you have to go back centuries. In the ordinary English primer the only thing the ordinary person learns about British rule in India is about the Blackhole of Calcutta and the massacre of Cawnpore, where there was a well choked with corpses. Centuries hence you will find Indian children brought up to this spot. just as they visit now the Cawnpore Well, and you can imagine the feelings of these Indians for generations over this terrible
business. [An HON. MEMBER: "What would you have done?"] I should not have committed murder. Think what all this means! You will have a shrine erected there and every year there will be processions of Indians visiting the tombs of the martyrs and Englishmen will go there and stand bareheaded before it. By this incident you have divided for all time races, races that might otherwise have loved one another. The right hon. Gentleman has laid a foundation which might have lead to a real co-operation with the British Empire but that has now been destroyed.

It has not only' destroyed that; but it has destroyed our reputation throughout the world. You know what will happen. All the blackguards in America when they lynch niggers, will say, "Oh, you did the same in India" When butcheries take place in Russia, whether it he by White or Red Guard, they will say. "We never did anything like what you did in India;" and when we tell the Turks, "You massacred the Armenians," they will say, "Yes, we wish we had the chance of getting 5,000 of them together, and then of shooting straight" That is the sort of welcome that this will get, and all the decent people in the world will think that England really likes what happened at Amritsar, and that all this sort of thing is English. Really, we know that this sort of thing is the finest Prussianism that ever took place. The Germans never did anything worse in Belgium. This damns us for all time. Whenever we put forward the humanitarian view. we shall have this tale thrown into our teeth. What is it that differentiates this from all other horrors by Governments in the past? If you have a mob distinctly out to kill and to loot, and the soldiers are called out to meet the mob, they have got to stop it. Firing is justified in such cases. There may be hundreds killed in such a ease, but, when soldiers are being stoned and hammered it is their duty as well as their right to resist.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The hon. and gallant Member knows that he is dealing with subjects which are sub judice and he is forming his estimate of what happened on one column and a-half report of the evidence of a single man who was in the witness-box for a whole day. He knows that no action of any sort or kind whatever can be taken, affecting whoever it may be, to vindicate—
if any action be necessary—the name of England for justice and fairplay, until that report is received. I have never known a case where so many deductions have been drawn in this House from events which at the moment are being inquired into by an impartial tribunal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think that I have varied from the words used by General Dyer. He is accused out of his own voice. He himself said, "I did not take thirty seconds to decide whether to shoot." He himself said that the mob might have dispersed if he had asked them. He himself said that he fired on them because, if they had dispersed, they might have come back and laughed at him afterwards. He has made that clear. I wanted to point out the difference between suppressing a mob doing violence and shooting down people who are not violent, because by that action terror might be inspired and prevent riots in the future. We have never justified the shooting down of people, not because they were endangering life but because they might do so at some future time unless they were fired on.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — JOINT STOCK BANKS (AMALGA MATED CONTROL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE (INSURANCE AGAINST ABNORMAL RISKS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) BILL [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES COMMISSION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, god discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY) BILL.

Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

The following Notice of Motion appeared on the Paper in the name of Captain WEDGWOOD BENN:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that Section four of the Third Schedule of the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be annulled..

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has permitted to expire the period which is allowed under the Act for the Minute to lie on the Table.

Captain BENN: Then I give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.
The remaining Government Order was read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
Profiteering (Continuance) Bill,
Old Age Pensions Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Union of Benefices Bill [Lords,]
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords.]

Consequential Amendment to—

Nurses Registration (Ireland) Bill,

Consequential Amendments to—

Electricity (Supply) Bill, without Amendment.

Land Settlement (Scotland Bill,—That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill to which this House has disagreed, and they agree to the Amendments made by this House in lieu of certain other of the Lords Amendments, without amendment.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill,—That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Bill to which this House has disagreed, and they agree to the Amendment to the Bill made by this House in lieu of one of them, without amendment.

Housing (Additional Powers) Bill,—That they agree with the Amendment made by the Commons to one of their Amendments to the Housing (Additional Powers) Bill, and they agree with the consequential Amendment made to the Bill by the Commons, without amendment.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Captain BENN: It will not be necessary to detain the House for more than a few
minutes, but this is a small technical matter applying to the Nautical College at Leith. It is in reference to the appointment of provincial committees which are being set up under the new scheme for training teachers in Scotland, and which divides the representation among different institutions. The five educational institutions are of diverse kinds, and the difficulty that arises is that the Nautical College is to be represented by representatives who will obviously be chosen in view of their qualification to represent ordinary educational institutions. It must be obvious to the Scottish Office that this raises considerable inconvenience. We should like to see if these nautical college teachers cannot be representatives on the provincial committees, who are cognisant of the practice and experience peculiar to the work of navigation. I am informed by the Scottish Secretary that if the matter is allowed to rest now the case must necessarily be prejudiced, because he tells me the Order is going to be "laid "again next Session, and in these circumstances I will not put the House to further inconvenience. I simply brought the matter forward in the hope that the Scottish Office might, if possible, meet the case I have put before the House some time next Session.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of HEALTH for SCOTLAND (Mr. Pratt): I rise to express the regret of the Secretary for Scotland that he could not be here, but I will convey to him what the hon. and gallant Member has said.

Colonel YATE: I should not like to leave this House without saying in regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that I have read all the accounts of the evidence given before the Commission in regard to these riots in the Punjab, and I can only say that a more gross misrepresentation of facts I have never heard in my life than the statement made by the hon. Member. The whole province had been in open rebellion; two gallant warrant officers had been killed; had any mob got across the railway line to the civil cantonments all the women and children would have been massacred; and 700 women and children were got away with this greatest difficulty. I believe some were got away in lorries. The whole province was in rebellion, and
General Dyer came in, and I firmly believe that he saved the whole province from being swept by rebellion. The hon. and gallant Member said that future generations of Englishmen would curse the memory of General Dyer. My belief is that every man who is concerned in this rebellion in the Punjab will curse the memory of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think, late as it is, I can allow the speech we have just heard to pass unchallenged.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
The house was adjourned at Tea minutes after Eleven of the clock till To-morrow.